BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Humber Bridge Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lordsamendments to be considered on Tuesday 10 December.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Parliament

Chris Heaton-Harris: What assessment he has made of the recent decision by the European Parliament to meet in a single location.

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the recent decision by the European Parliament to meet in a single location.

David Lidington: We have been clear that there should be a single seat for the European Parliament. The current arrangements are indefensible, ludicrously expensive, impractical and one of the most striking illustrations of EU waste.

Chris Heaton-Harris: If there is one thing that unifies this House more than any other, it is that the European Parliament’s commute between Brussels and Strasbourg once a month, at a massive cost of over £10 million a time, is a waste of money. Is he not surprised, therefore, that one British political party abstained in the parliamentary vote and failed to protect the British interest and the taxpayer interest—the UK Independence party?

David Lidington: I am afraid that I am not surprised, because that party’s representatives are often absent in key votes in the European Parliament when significant British interests are at stake. I congratulate those Members
	of the European Parliament, from all political families, who supported the initiative that our colleague, Ashley Fox, led and co-ordinated.

Anne McIntosh: The decision on a single seat was taken under a Conservative Government and in relation to an EU treaty, so presumably it will have to be amended by an EU treaty. Which other member states support us, and should we not wait until the Chamber is ready to host the European Parliament again in full session in Brussels before proceeding?

David Lidington: What was striking about the debate and the vote a few days ago was that the clearly expressed will of a decisive majority of Members of the European Parliament was that there should be a single seat, and it seems to me that their voice should be heard clearly. The Parliament has also said that it wishes to initiate proposals for treaty change at a future opportunity to try to give effect to the change it is now recommending.

Nigel Dodds: Given that that travelling circus costs €180 million a year, or €1 billion over the course of the EU’s seven-year budget, which is a staggering figure, does the Minister agree that those involved in the single seat campaign in the European Parliament, including Members from my party, deserve to be commended for putting an end to that kind of waste?

David Lidington: I am happy to repeat those commendations. Of course, there is not only financial waste; an unnecessary amount of carbon is emitted as the Members, their staff and the accompanying luggage are transported from one place to another.

Trade and Investment (Africa)

Nigel Evans: What recent steps his Department has taken to promote trade and investment opportunities for British firms operating in Africa.

Mark Simmonds: Boosting trade and investment is one of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s major priorities in Africa. We have strengthened commercial teams throughout the region. Last month I launched high-level prosperity partnerships with Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania. That combines expertise from the Department for International Development, UK Trade & Investment, the FCO and the private sector to create a paradigm shift in the UK’s trade relationship with those five countries.

Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that with growth rates of up to 8%, a population of 1 billion and a combined GDP of around $2 trillion, and with sub-Saharan Africa being the second-fastest growing region in the world, trade is an effective alternative to aid and strengthens diplomatic ties?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Six of the world’s top-10 fastest growing economies are in sub-Saharan Africa. Certainly, among the main focuses of African Governments are economic development
	and growth, wealth and job creation. They are becoming more determined to stimulate economic growth as a major focus in alleviating poverty. We need to ensure that, in addition to building trade and investment co-operation we assist in building Government capacity and ensure that UK businesses are aware of the significant opportunities that exist in sub-Saharan Africa.

Frank Roy: Obtaining investment is vital to Africa. What actions is the Department taking to encourage trade and investment specifically in northern Nigeria, which seems to be left out on many occasions?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the challenges that are being faced in northern Nigeria. I was there earlier in the year and saw some of the excellent work that is being done in trying to alleviate some of the conflicts and to encourage co-operation between the various religious groups. I also saw some of the work that the Department for International Development is doing to build capacity in terms of providing services and trying create the security and stability that is the precursor to economic investment and development.

George Freeman: I congratulate the Minister on the work that the Government are doing, particularly through the FCO working with UKTI in promoting trade around the world. Does he agree that Kenya and east Africa is a particularly important market for us where we may be able better to integrate our DFID aid work and our UKTI and FCO trade work? I was there this summer, and have been there in recent years, and one sees that Kenya is on the front line of the global race, with corruption and with progressive British capitalism based in Nairobi.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Kenya is a major trading partner for the United Kingdom. Significant UK businesses are already investing in Kenya. Only this morning I spoke to open the UKTI Kenya conference at Mansion House in the City of London, which was extremely well attended. In addition to the obvious focus on the financial services sector, we need to focus on a whole range of areas and economic sectors where the UK has particular expertise, such as the automotive industries.

Angus Robertson: Usually diplomatic networks are used to promote trade and export by celebrating national days, but a survey over the weekend showed that of 20 UK diplomatic and consular postings, not a single one was doing anything to celebrate St Andrew’s day. Why was that?

Mark Simmonds: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the UK diplomatic missions around the world, particularly in Africa, do everything they can to promote all UK businesses, including Scottish businesses that go on UK trade missions. When I was in South Africa I promoted a Scottish trade mission to secure work for businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Meg Hillier: In 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan and the Prime Minister signed an agreement to increase trade
	between Nigeria and the UK. Will the Minister update us on how that is progressing, particularly in certain business sectors?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Prime Minister and President Jonathan stipulated that trade needs to increase significantly by 2015. We are on track to meet those targets, not just in the obvious oil and gas and extractive sectors but across a whole range of economic sectors, particularly as in southern Nigeria the levels of affluence mean that the Nigerian middle class is growing. That is creating huge opportunities for businesses in the consumer and creative arts sectors, and that is something that our missions are supporting.

Gibraltar

Jason McCartney: What recent reports he has received on the situation in Gibraltar.

David Lidington: We remain very concerned by delays at Gibraltar’s border with Spain and are pressing the Spanish authorities to act on the European Commission’s recommendations to them. We continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar to uphold the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the rights of the people of Gibraltar, including by challenging unlawful Spanish incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters.

Jason McCartney: Having spent a short period of my Royal Air Force service in Gibraltar, I am aware of the importance of having a workable border crossing. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Commission to keep its promise to make it easier for traffic to cross the Gibraltar border and follow up this matter with Spain so that the people of Gibraltar can enjoy the EU rights that Spain owes them?

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are indeed continuing to press the Spanish authorities to implement what the Commission has recommended they do, including adding to the number of traffic lanes so that cars can get through more smoothly and looking at how to risk-profile travellers crossing the border so that those who may be smugglers or other criminals can be properly identified and ordinary citizens not inconvenienced.

Barry Sheerman: May I urge the Minister to use all his influence to temper the language that is being used in this dispute? There undoubtedly is a dispute, but the Spanish are great allies of ours: they are fellow members of the European Union and many British people live in Spain. Can we just lower the temperature and stop throwing brickbats at each other?

David Lidington: I would be only too pleased if we could lower the temperature. It is not just a matter of lowering the temperature in verbal exchanges but of expecting our NATO allies in Spain to desist from the unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar waters that have been all too common.

EU and Ukraine

Gary Streeter: What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the relationship between the European Union and Ukraine.

William Hague: This was the main focus at the October Foreign Affairs Council. The decision to put on hold the signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement is a missed opportunity. The EU’s door remains open. It is, of course, up to Ukraine to decide whether to walk through it and I strongly urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of their people to express peacefully their views on this issue.

Gary Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ukrainian President’s recent decision not to sign the association agreement is doubly disappointing in that it would have brought great benefits to the Ukrainian people? What more can the European Union do to help Ukraine turn its back fully on its Soviet past and embrace a democratic European family?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Agreement on a deep and comprehensive free trade area would eliminate 99% of customs duties, in trade value, with Ukraine. That would save Ukraine about €500 million per annum. Economic analysts suggest that 6% would be added to Ukrainian GDP through more open trade with the European Union. The door will remain open and I believe that that message will be clearly communicated by all EU member states.

Mark Lazarowicz: The situation in Ukraine is obviously intense and it is important that nothing is done by any outside parties to exacerbate it. Will the Secretary of State give some more information about what the UK Government are doing to try to get the negotiations back on course and to encourage the agreement with Ukraine to go ahead?

William Hague: It is for Ukraine to make a decision about this. The advantages of an association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade area are self-evident. It is for the people of Ukraine and their Government to make a judgment about that. The door remains open, as I said a moment ago. We will continue to make that point to them, including in all our discussions with Ukrainian Ministers over the next few weeks. I think the rest of the EU will do the same, but in the end it has to be their decision and their judgment.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I warmly welcome the fact that the door remains open, particularly in the light of the reaction of the Ukrainian people and the distinct possibility that there might be a change of policy or even a change of the Ukrainian Government themselves? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the alternative would not only dash the hopes and interests of the Ukrainian people, but give a very serious boost to the dangerous ambition of President Putin to try to restore some form of Russian empire?

William Hague: Clearly, it is open to Ukraine to change its policy. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a great deal of discussion about that in Ukraine at the moment. Again, I urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of peaceful protest and to investigate thoroughly why police violence was used several days ago. I believe it would also be in the long-term interests of Russia for Ukraine to have more open trade with the European Union. The sorts of economic benefits that I have said would flow to Ukraine would go on to benefit the Russian economy as well.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary said a moment ago that the benefits of this potential agreement are self-evident. The EU High Representative has described it as the
	“most ambitious agreement ever offered to a partner country”,
	yet, as we have heard, the Ukrainian President has refused to sign it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more of what he believes were the main barriers to the deal being agreed and whether he still believes they can be overcome, given the external pressure on Ukraine?

William Hague: One principal barrier was the pressure from Russia not to sign or make such an agreement with the European Union. As I have said, we disagree with that assessment even from Russia’s point of view. It would be in the interests of Russia and the whole of eastern Europe to have more open trade and co-operation with each other. We will go on setting out the advantages, but we will also look to Ukraine to clearly meet the criteria set out in the association agreement. Reliable studies have suggested that average wages in Ukraine would rise and that exports to the EU would rise by an estimated 6%. The arguments are very clear, but in the end it is for Ukrainians to make their judgment on them.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the candour of his last answer, which confirms the role that Russia clearly played in the events that unfolded at the summit. Reports suggest that the International Monetary Fund has a stand-by facility of between $10 billion and $15 billion to provide emergency financial support for Ukraine should Russia take steps to increase economic pressure on the country. Will he set out the British Government’s position on that stand-by facility, and say whether he thinks there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate to make it available to Ukraine?

William Hague: If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms. The reforms on which the IMF has made a new arrangement conditional would help to build a more stable and prosperous Ukraine, which again is important.
	It is also important to note in passing that although this agreement has not been signed, deep and comprehensive free trade areas have been agreed between the EU and Georgia and Moldova, so parts of the EU’s Eastern Partnership have continued to progress.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first priority must be to put pressure on the Ukrainian Government to stop the shocking violence that has been committed over the last
	few days against the peaceful protesters currently in Independence square? Does he, however, take some encouragement from the stated commitment of the Government of Ukraine that they still wish to achieve, in due course, closer relations with the European Union, which is clearly the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainian people?

William Hague: That does seem to be the desire of the majority of the Ukrainian people, so all hon. Members will of course hope that Ukraine is able to go in that direction. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the first priority at the moment is to stress the need to allow peaceful protest. We have done that in the statements we issued at the weekend and in what I have said today. The incident at the weekend provoked domestic outrage and international condemnation, quite rightly, but we will keep the door open, as he and others have asked.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Natascha Engel: What discussions he has had with his US counterpart during negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership on the US blockade of the Republic of Cuba and its effect on European companies doing business in that country.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the transatlantic trade and investment partnership with Secretary Kerry. Both are keen supporters of this free trade agreement, which is worth up to £10 billion to the UK economy. They did not cover Cuba in those discussions.

Natascha Engel: Will the Minister use all his influence to persuade the United States to lift the blockade, which is bad for Cubans, bad for trade and bad for British business?

David Lidington: We make it clear to the United States that we disagree with its approach to Cuba. We think that the blockade is counter-productive and that the way to strengthen the chances of both economic and political reform in Cuba is through engagement, including on trade.

Richard Ottaway: At the heart of this argument is a tactic that the United States has deployed in a number of different scenarios—namely, that it seeks to impose restrictions on US companies trading around the world, but also on non-US companies trading outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Will the Minister use the TTIP talks to try to persuade the United States to reconsider that tactic not just in Cuba, but more widely?

David Lidington: I am not sure that the TTIP talks are the right opportunity for doing that, but my right hon. Friend certainly makes a good point. As he knows, we have both UK and EU legislation specifically to counter the extraterritorial impact of US sanctions against other countries’ companies operating in or trading with Cuba, and we continue to keep under review the necessity for such legislation as regards other countries.

EU Treaty Change

Stephen McCabe: What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of EU treaty change before 2017.

William Hague: A number of ideas being considered in European capitals would require treaty change. The President of the Commission has made proposals requiring treaty change, and the fiscal compact’s signatories hope to see the compact put into the treaties before January 2018. Europe is changing because of the eurozone crisis, and we should expect that process to include treaty change.

Stephen McCabe: Does that mean that negotiations have actually commenced, and if so, when do they have to be concluded? What is the absolute deadline to meet the commitment for a referendum in 2017?

William Hague: No. Clearly, negotiations have not commenced, although the Government continue at all times to work on seeking a more competitive European Union that is less regulatory, and in any such negotiation we of course want an EU that will be more accountable to national Parliaments as well. The position of the Conservative party, rather than of Her Majesty’s Government as a whole, is to implement the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which was passed in this House on Friday, and that means a referendum by the end of 2017.

Christopher Chope: Would it require treaty change to ensure that the benefits paid to EU citizens are paid at the rate prevailing in their home country?

William Hague: It does not require treaty change to ensure that the concept of free movement is carried out on a more sensible basis. It should not be about exporting child benefit, for instance. The Prime Minister has set out changes that we can make without treaty change. However, it is possible to contemplate, as the Prime Minister has also set out, having new arrangements on free movement for countries that join the EU to slow the access to each other’s labour markets until we can be sure that it will not cause vast migration. Some of those arrangements would require treaty change.

David Wright: The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will have had discussions with Chancellor Merkel about the EU referendum process. Given that the new coalition agreement in Germany has no mention whatever of EU treaty change, what progress has actually been made?

William Hague: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been many coalition agreements in Germany—there has been one every four years for decades—that have not mentioned treaty change, but that have been followed by many changes in European treaties. Indeed, Chancellor Merkel said at a conference just last month:
	“Germany is ready to develop the treaties still further.”
	That is the position of Chancellor Merkel herself.

Peter Hain: If the Foreign Secretary achieved his reform objectives and any consequential treaty changes in principle with European Council members, but another country subsequently rejected those treaty changes in a referendum, what would he do?

William Hague: That argument can be made about any treaty in the European Union. In respect of past treaties, including those that the right hon. Gentleman negotiated, my party would say that the people of this country should have had the right to say no in a referendum. Treaty change, of course, requires unanimous approval. As he well knows, that has not stopped many treaties over the past 15 years—indeed, over the past few decades—and it will not stop treaty change in future.

Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative

Paul Uppal: What progress has been made on the preventing sexual violence initiative following his recent visit to Sri Lanka for CHOGM.

William Hague: At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the UK secured agreement to strengthen capacity to tackle sexual violence in conflict-affected states, to improve the monitoring and documentation of cases of sexual violence, and to empower victims to access justice. Thirty-four members of the Commonwealth have endorsed our declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict.

Paul Uppal: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. He met many civil society groups in Sri Lanka recently and spoke at length about this issue. Will he assure me and the House that we will maintain the pressure on this issue, particularly in respect of our Commonwealth partners?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. I gave a speech on this issue at a special event in Colombo in Sri Lanka a few weeks ago. I also met local non-governmental organisations and civil society representatives to learn more about it. We will continue to raise this issue in Sri Lanka and other conflict-affected states, where such matters are controversial and sometimes historically difficult, and to gather the maximum possible support ahead of next June’s global summit, which I announced last week.

Gavin Shuker: In Sri Lanka, it is not unusual for a rape case to take 12 years to be resolved or brought to court. There is little or no accountability for security forces that are involved in such violence. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the specific measures that were agreed with the Sri Lankan Government following his recent trip?

William Hague: In common with other Governments, we have called on the Sri Lankan authorities to investigate in an independent and credible manner the allegations of sexual violence, including the allegations that it was committed by Sri Lankan forces during and after the recent conflict. The Prime Minister has made it clear that in the absence of an independent investigation, we will press for an international investigation. We will continue to put that case. Sri Lanka has not yet stated
	its support for our declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict, but we will continue, as I am sure will Members across the House, to argue that it should do so.

Stephen O'Brien: I warmly commend my right hon. Friend for his initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. To deliver the results that he and all of us want to see, what point has he found in his research to be the most incentivising on the leaders of countries that we need to encourage to make the matter a priority?

William Hague: The crucial point is that although there is an overwhelming moral argument for dealing with the issue, there are also important considerations of conflict resolution. Conflicts are not resolved unless sexual violence is tackled, because it perpetuates conflict, divides communities and pits them against each other into the long-term future. Many leaders across the world can see that, which is why countries such as Somalia and Ministers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo support the initiative that we have taken.

Wayne David: The Prime Minister has said that if the investigation to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred is not completed by next March, he will call for an independent international inquiry. Does the Foreign Secretary stand by that statement?

William Hague: Yes, of course. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will have found any statement in recent years where the Prime Minister and I differ—I hope he has not. Opposition Front Benchers are thinking hard about that now. Of course we stand by that statement. In March, there will be a session of the Human Rights Council, of which, I am pleased to say, the United Kingdom was re-elected as a voting member last month. We will use that position to raise this issue along with many others around the world.

Crispin Blunt: Forty-one out of 53 Commonwealth countries criminalise same-sex relationships, as documented by the Kaleidoscope Trust in a report just in advance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. What progress was made in addressing that stain on the reputation of the Commonwealth and the personal freedom of its citizens?

William Hague: Frankly, too little progress has been made on that in recent years. The United Kingdom raises the matter, and in fact I gave a speech at the previous CHOGM in Australia specifically about the importance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in the Commonwealth. We raise the matter regularly with our partners in the Commonwealth, but it is an area in which the human rights record of the Commonwealth as a whole is not good enough.

Kerry McCarthy: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts on the preventing sexual violence initiative, but as he has said, he came away from CHOGM without having got a commitment from President Rajapaksa to endorse the initiative. Given that face-to-face lobbying by the Foreign Secretary, and I hope by the Prime Minister as well, failed to convince
	the Sri Lankan Government to sign up, what steps does he think he can take now to ensure that they make that commitment in the near future?

William Hague: We can take many steps. First, 34 countries of the Commonwealth—and 137 countries in the world as a whole—have now signed the declaration. I spoke last night to the diplomatic corps here and said that now that only a minority of countries in the world have not signed our declaration on sexual violence, it is time for them to get on with it and not be left out of that work. Of course, Sri Lanka is one of the hardest countries to convince about that, for instance because one of the provisions of our declaration is that there will be no amnesty in peace agreements for crimes of sexual violence and that there will be real accountability for what happened in the past. It is easy to see why the Sri Lankan Government do not want to embrace those issues, but we will keep on raising them with them.

Nicholas Soames: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking important steps towards dealing with this vile problem? Does he agree that it may be necessary to amend the Geneva convention to deal with these problems, and will he look at what can be done through the convention?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. So far, we have agreed among the G8 nations and the 137 nations that have now signed the declaration that I put forward that crimes of sexual violence in conflict are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and their first protocol. That does not require us to change the Geneva conventions, but it does require us to get the whole world to recognise that those crimes are breaches of the Geneva conventions in any case and should be part of the rules of warfare that the whole world should accept for the future.

Treatment of Prisoners (United States)

Grahame Morris: What steps his Department is taking to promote the humane treatment of prisoners held in the US; if he will make representations on the fairness of the trial of the Miami Five to his US counterpart; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: The British Government work through our network of US posts and with the EU to promote the humane treatment of prisoners held in the United States. The United States Government have stated that the Miami five have had the same privileges available to them as all other US prisoners.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he indicate his response to widespread reports that US-based journalists were paid to write prejudicial articles about the case before and during the trial? In the interests of natural justice, will he make representations to the US State Department on the issue?

Hugh Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, this complicated case stretches back many years. If I am correct, the trial was in December 2001—more
	than a decade ago. It is further complicated by the fact that there are intelligence implications and a read-across to other cases in Cuba. The UK has no direct locus in this case as it exists between the US and Cuba. If the hon. Gentleman has information that should have been made available about the case, I suggest it is made available to US judicial authorities as a matter of urgency.

EU Membership

Tim Loughton: What his priorities are for reform of the terms of UK membership of the EU.

Ian Murray: Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

Gregg McClymont: Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

William Hague: In his speech at the beginning of the year the Prime Minister set out five principles for real change in the EU: global competitiveness, democratic legitimacy, powers flowing back to nation states, flexibility, and fairness between eurozone and non-eurozone. Those are our priorities for reform.

Tim Loughton: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the great majority of those reforms, and those set out in the Fresh Start project manifesto and others, can be achieved without treaty change, and that when we make it clear that the new reformed EU that most of us want to achieve is not just a case of promoting little-Englander interests, but rather trying to achieve a sustainable outward-looking, globally competitive EU for the benefit of all 28 nations, we increasingly find that we are pushing at an open door?

William Hague: I warmly welcome the useful contribution that Fresh Start has made to the debate on EU reform, and I think my hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Indeed, many other countries are now also seeing that it is time to move on to new arguments and a new perspective on the European Union. For instance, following their investigation into subsidiarity, the Dutch Government said it should be ensured that EU action is taken only where necessary, with national action always pursued where possible.

Ian Murray: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House his top policy priority for renegotiation, which will have most influence on him and whether he votes to stay in or leave the EU?

William Hague: I am not going to choose from among the five priorities as they are all important. Global competitiveness, democratic legitimacy, powers flowing back to nation states, flexibility, and fairness for the non-eurozone are all crucial priorities and important to this country’s future in the European Union.

Gregg McClymont: Well, that was as clear as mud. Can I try again and ask the Foreign Secretary which, of the five abstract principles he referred to, is his top-level policy that would persuade him to vote to stay in the European Union?

William Hague: Unlike the Labour party we are capable of thinking of more than one thing at a time. There are five themes, and since I have set out five, asking for one is not particularly helpful. We have also delivered more than one. We have already cut the EU budget for the first time, which Labour did not do, and we have protected the rebate in full, which Labour failed to do. We have put a stop to involvement in eurozone bail-outs, which Labour never achieved, and we will go on sticking up for Britain in Europe on more than one subject at a time.

Julian Lewis: Should reasserting control of our national borders be a priority? For example, does it make any more sense to have a single European work force than it does to have a single European currency?

William Hague: As I said earlier, I think reforming the concept of free movement on a sensible basis is the right way to think about that. Freedom of movement of workers in the European Union clearly has many benefits, including for British people, but we also know that it is susceptible to being abused. I therefore think the reforms set out last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are the right way to proceed.

Gareth Thomas: As the Foreign Secretary reflects on the answers he has just given, he will be mindful, I am sure, of the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion on the justice and home affairs block opt-out that,
	“there is little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”
	Should the House believe the European Scrutiny Committee or not?

William Hague: As I reflect on the answers I have just given, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider them to have been very good answers. European Scrutiny Committee reports should always be taken extremely seriously. The Committee looks at issues in great detail, the Government respond to them in detail and many are debated in this House.

Iran

John Leech: What assessment he has made of recent developments in the UK’s relations with Iran.

William Hague: We are upgrading our bilateral relations on a step-by-step basis, including through the appointment of non-resident chargés d’affaires, direct contact between the Prime Minister and President Rouhani, and meetings between officials. Our dialogue with Iran has covered bilateral relations, the nuclear issue and Syria.

John Leech: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. While I welcome all efforts to improve relations with Iran to encourage peace and stability in the whole region, will he assure me that we will continue to take a tough stance on the treatment of opposition groups and minorities by the Iranian authorities?

William Hague: Absolutely. I can readily give that guarantee. We have clearly made progress on the nuclear issue, with the interim agreement we have concluded, and are stepping up bilateral relations, but that in no way inhibits us from expressing our views on human rights. Iran continues to have one of the worst human rights records in the world for the treatment of journalists and minors, and for the continued house arrest of key opposition leaders. We will always feel free to raise those issues with Iranian leaders.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Foreign Secretary back to his favourite subject, a nuclear weapons-free middle east? That has now become a greater possibility with an interim agreement with Iran. Will he update us on progress on a conference that would include Israel, which of course is the only country in the region that has declared nuclear weapons?

William Hague: I do not have an update beyond the one I gave the hon. Gentleman a couple of weeks ago, but I will keep in touch with him as he is extremely assiduous on this matter. I agree with his assessment that the interim deal achieved with Iran on the nuclear issue reinforces the case for, and brings closer, a conference for which he has long campaigned and which the United Kingdom would like to see.

James Morris: Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, continues to support the brutal Assad regime. What leverage can the Foreign Secretary bring to bear on Iran’s role in Syria? Would President Rouhani’s recent move towards peace not have more credibility if he took a much more constructive role in attempting to resolve the conflict in Syria?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Iran continues to play a role in Syria that in our view perpetuates the conflict and contributes to the appalling human rights abuses and oppression by the Assad regime. There have so far not been wider changes in Iran’s foreign policy, alongside the nuclear deal that we have concluded. We will of course press for those changes. Our non-resident chargé d’affaires is today making his first visit to Iran and discussion on Syria will be included on the agenda.

Ian Lucas: Following on from the Foreign Secretary’s answer, what is his assessment of the prospect of Iran accepting the terms of the 30 June Geneva final communiqué and participating in the Geneva II talks on 22 January?

William Hague: That is an important question, and one that I put to the Iranian Foreign Minister. We think it should be possible for all nations to work on Syria together, on the basis of the Geneva I communiqué. I have said to the Iranians that if they were able to do that, then many countries, including the UK, would be more favourable to their inclusion in future international discussions. While they have not ruled that out, they have yet not committed to it. We will continue to press them to do so.

Middle East

Duncan Hames: What assessment he has made of the effect of recent announcements of settlement building on the middle east peace negotiations.

Hugh Robertson: Recent settlement announcements have had a detrimental impact on trust between the two parties. During my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I made clear our serious concerns about the announcements and our strong opposition to settlements.

Duncan Hames: Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General described Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a cause of great concern, saying that it risked the continuation of negotiations and must cease. I am glad that our Minister shares those concerns. Will he use his influence to shape European trade policies in a manner that is consistent with our Government’s view on the illegal settlements?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, we will. As I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows, we welcome the EU guidelines on the eligibility of Israel entities for EU funding and the agreement reached last week that, on the other side, allows Israel to participate in Horizon 2020. We will absolutely make those representations.

Louise Ellman: Announcements of new settlement building must be unhelpful, but does the Minister recognise Israel’s good will in continuing its programme of releasing more than 100 convicted prisoners, many of them terrorists who carried out horrendous crimes, at the same time as the Palestinian national broadcasting authority perpetuates calls for violence against Israelis and Jews?

Hugh Robertson: Yes. If the Palestinian broadcasting authority is perpetuating calls for violence, that is totally unacceptable, and I would have no hesitation in condemning it. It is fair to say that it was made clear to me a couple of weeks ago that the Palestinians believe that the original agreement was that there would be no push towards representation in international bodies in exchange for prisoner release and that the settlements issue should be renegotiated at a later stage.

Philip Hollobone: As the middle east peace negotiations continue, are the Palestinians speaking with one voice? What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas?

Hugh Robertson: It is absolutely clear that those Palestinian entities involved in the peace process are indeed speaking with one voice. It is clear, however—I suspect that this is what lies behind my hon. Friend’s question—that there is a very considerable difference between the Palestinian authorities engaged in those processes and the authorities in Gaza. I would call on those authorities in Gaza to make it clear that they deplore terrorist activities of all sorts.

Andy Slaughter: When hon. Members raise the issue of, say, trade with illegal settlements, the Government say that they do not want to upset the peace talks, but 4,000 settlements have been announced—800 last week—and those are destabilising the peace talks. What are the Government going to do about that in order to support the peace talks?

Hugh Robertson: I am not sure that I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes, because the Government have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements about expanded settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are illegal under international law and, as I have said, they undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. We are quite clear about that.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Neil Carmichael: What assessment he has made of progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks.

David Lidington: Negotiations are progressing well and are on track to meet our shared ambition of concluding them in 2015. There will be a third round of talks next month, followed by an EU-US ministerial stock-take of progress to be held in early 2014 to set the direction of talks for next year.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that these talks will, because of the enormity of both the European and the US economies coming together, lead to a substantial growth in the global economy? Does he also think that this will be a catalyst to a further improvement and enhancement of the single market, justifying Britain’s membership of the European Union?

Mr Speaker: As Churchill used to say, one is enough.

David Lidington: I think that my hon. Friend’s hopes are very well placed. This deal has the prospect of being transformative for the world economy, bringing perhaps an additional £100 billion a year for the EU and £80 billion a year for the United States over the longer term. That would include £10 billion a year for this country.
	Topical Questions

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: I am about to join NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels this afternoon, where we will discuss plans for the NATO summit in Wales in 2014. We will also discuss our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, building defence capabilities and work with non-NATO partners.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. If the Sri Lankan Government do not address war crimes and human rights by next year, will the Foreign Secretary consider setting up, along with other countries, a war crimes tribunal?

William Hague: As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we will pursue this at the Human Rights Council in March. If the Sri Lankan Government have not set up an inquiry of their own by then—so far, they have refused to do so—we would favour an international inquiry that is independent, credible and thorough. We will discuss
	with other countries in the Human Rights Council how best to do that and what we propose to do in detail. We will keep the House informed.

Paul Uppal: The Prime Minister recently completed his first visit to India in three years. Representing as I do a Wolverhampton constituency, I have a significant Punjabi diaspora community in my constituency. May I highlight to the Front Bench the real issue of drug misuse in Punjab, particularly among young men? Given Britain’s expertise in rehabilitation, may I urge the Foreign Office, along with the Department for International Development, to provide British expertise in this area?

William Hague: We will take a look at that. The Prime Minister’s visit to India was certainly very successful. We have greatly strengthened our relations with India with the Prime Minister’s three visits and all the other work we have done. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue, and I undertake to him that we will look at it in more detail.

Douglas Alexander: Can the Foreign Secretary offer the House an explanation as to why it has taken the Prime Minister three years to make his second visit to China this week?

William Hague: I think the right hon. Gentleman could have phrased the question in a slightly more positive way, for instance by asking why it is that this Prime Minister has taken the biggest ever trade delegation to China or why we now have more dialogue between the UK and China than ever before, more people-to-people exchanges, more students studying in each other’s countries than ever before, and more trade and investment than ever before. Clearly the Prime Minister gets extremely good value out of the visits he makes.

John Baron: Given Iran’s influence in the region, what prospect is there for talks other than nuclear with Iran on areas of mutual benefit and interest, including regional security?

William Hague: We are having talks today, as I mentioned a moment ago. Our new non-resident chargé is visiting Tehran today. This is the first visit by a British diplomat in more than two years, since the evacuation of our embassy, and those talks will be about various aspects of our bilateral relations. Of course that can include regional affairs and we look forward to discussing those more with Iran over the coming months.

Paul Blomfield: Following the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the UK will establish a public registry of the beneficial ownership of companies, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Government will be doing to ensure that the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories also establish registries, and what action the Government will take if they fail to do so?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman hopefully will be aware that last week we
	held the joint ministerial council in London, which all the overseas territories’ leaders attended. All those territories which have significant financial services sectors have responded very positively to the Prime Minister’s G8 agenda of trade, tax and transparency and all of them have committed not only to join multilateral exchange of tax information, but to consult on both having central registries of beneficial ownership and on making that information public.

Malcolm Rifkind: While warmly welcoming the interim agreement on Iran, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it will be crucial for Iran to honour both the spirit and the letter of its commitments, and is not one of the most important obligations its promise either to convert back or to dilute that part of the uranium enrichment up to 20%, because there is little or no relevance for a 20% enrichment other than for potential military purposes?

William Hague: I absolutely agree. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. It is a key part of the interim agreement we have reached with Iran that the whole stock of the uranium enriched to near 20% must be converted or diluted. In the coming weeks we will form a joint commission with Iran that will oversee the implementation of this agreement, and the implementation of it in detail—as well as in spirit, as he rightly says—will be crucial to its success and to our ability to negotiate a comprehensive and final agreement with Iran.

Ian Austin: Many of my constituents are very keen to see justice, self-determination, peace and prosperity for the people of Kashmir. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the Government’s work to encourage talks between Pakistan and India? Will he come to Dudley or hold a meeting in London to meet my constituents, who have got a great deal of knowledge and expertise on how Britain could help in this area?

William Hague: I undertake that one of my ministerial colleagues will meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Of course, these are important and long-running issues, and I want to pay tribute to the Governments of Pakistan and India for the recent work they have done together to improve their relations. The Prime Minister has discussed this in India, and I have discussed it recently with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. It is not for Britain to mediate or to try to determine the outcome, but we do want those two countries to enjoy the very good relations that would represent a great breakthrough in world affairs.

Aidan Burley: Given the Prime Minister’s current visit to China, does the Secretary of State share the US Vice-President’s deep concern about the new air defence identification zone that China has unilaterally set up over the Senkaku-Diaoyu islands?

William Hague: In common with the rest of the European Union, we note with concern that China has established an air defence identification zone in the East China sea. The UK, as my hon. Friend knows, does not take a position on the underlying sovereignty issues, but we
	urge all parties to work together to reduce tensions and to resolve issues peacefully, in line with international law.

Lisa Nandy: A year ago, 13-year old Mahmoud Khousa was targeted and killed by a drone-fired missile in the streets of Gaza as he walked to the shops to buy a pencil for his sister. According to Amnesty International, it would have been clear to the Israeli military that Mahmoud was a child. Does the Minister agree that it is a travesty that, 12 months later, nobody has been held to account for Mahmoud’s death? Will the Minister use his influence to achieve justice for Mahmoud and his family and to send a strong message that nobody should be allowed to target innocent 13-year-old children?

Hugh Robertson: I am sure there is total agreement right across the House that there is absolutely no excuse for the targeting of children in any form of military strike. I am not entirely sure how a drone could be that precisely targeted, but the hon. Lady absolutely has my undertaking that we regard this as a matter of the utmost seriousness, and we will take it up in no uncertain terms with the Israeli authorities.

Steve Brine: In the light of the Prime Minister’s timely and very welcome visit to China, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what he is doing to ensure that British diplomats speak Chinese and other languages vital to our success, and to reverse the decline in language teaching in the Foreign Office that he sadly inherited?

William Hague: This is a very important issue. Almost unbelievably, the last Government closed the Foreign Office language school. This year, I reopened it. It has 40 classrooms and is able to teach civil servants from across the rest of Government as well. We have sharply increased the number of posts that require the speaking of Mandarin, of Arabic, and of Latin American Spanish and Portuguese. The decline in diplomatic languages that the last Government presided over is now well and truly being reversed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Extreme brevity is now required. I call Debbie Abrahams.

Debbie Abrahams: We welcome the prospect of the EU-US trade deal, but I would grateful if the Minister confirmed that the NHS will be exempt from the trade negotiations, in exactly the same way that Canada achieved such exemption in its EU trade negotiations. I have had confusing correspondence with the Government on this.

David Lidington: We are seeking a specific reference in the investment chapter of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership to enable the British Government to continue to legislate in the public interest where necessary, but we also want a deal that allows our pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors to compete for more business in the United States.

Simon Hughes: Will Ministers take up with the Government of Bangladesh the increasing concerns of Bangladeshis in this country, and others, about the intimidation, threats, violence and persecution of minorities, both political and faith?

Hugh Robertson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the answer to that is yes. As he knows, the next round of Bangladeshi parliamentary elections is scheduled for 5 January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh in November to find an agreeable way to run those elections—in a fair, free and satisfactory fashion.

Ian Lavery: On 11 October, a constituent of mine, Mr Nick Dunn, a 27-year-old former Paratrooper who served on the front line in Afghanistan and Iraq, was taken from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio ship off the coast of Tamil Nadu. Five other UK residents were also taken, including a constituent of the Secretary of State. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Indian authorities, and what are his Government doing to secure the immediate release of Mr Dunn and his colleagues from the Puzhal prison, in Chennai?

William Hague: This is an important consular case, which the Prime Minister has raised with the Prime Minister of India and which I have raised with the Indian Foreign Minister, and we intend to have discussions in the coming weeks with the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu state, which is where the men are being held. Consular officials have been providing assistance since the men were detained, and liaising with the Estonian and Ukrainian embassies, as nationals of those countries are also involved. We have visited the men four times to confirm their welfare, and we are pressing the company they work for to fulfil its obligations and to ensure that the men have good lawyers.

Peter Bone: What is the probability that the Foreign Secretary will vote to leave the European Union in 2017?

William Hague: The probability is that we will be working for all the objectives that I stated earlier so that, by achieving them, we will be able to recommend that Britain stay in the European Union—but we will have to achieve them.

Caroline Lucas: Amnesty International is warning that Gaza’s 1.7 million residents are facing a public health catastrophe, with chronic fuel and power shortages. The Foreign Secretary often says that he is repeatedly urging the Israeli authorities to ease their restrictions on Gaza, but nothing ever happens on the ground. Will he now at least call for a formal assessment of whether the human rights conditions in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement are being met?

Hugh Robertson: The British Government have made their views on this matter abundantly clear; I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the statement that we released recently on the situation in Gaza. She has suggested that the situation is dire, but she will also be aware that
	part of the problem was the creation of the tunnels, which have now been blocked up. We are urging the Israeli authorities to facilitate free trade and to alleviate the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Robert Halfon: Further to my hon. Friend’s answer to that question, is he aware that millions of tonnes of aid from Israel go into Gaza every week? Is he also aware that it would be perfectly possible for the Egyptians to open their border to let goods into Gaza?

Hugh Robertson: Indeed I am perfectly aware of that; the issue was discussed with the Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister only yesterday.

Meg Munn: Last week, at a meeting in this building, a representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights described the situation in Syria as probably the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. Given the fact that nobody seems to want to talk about it, including those in this Chamber, will the Government redouble their efforts to work with the international community to bring to an end the conflict that is devastating that region?

William Hague: Yes. Although the issue has not been asked about in questions today, it is actually our top foreign policy priority. It has now been agreed that a Geneva II peace conference will be convened on 22 January, and we are encouraging all concerned to attend. In the meantime, the United Kingdom continues to be one of the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief effort and to helping to ensure the stability of neighbouring countries. We will also strongly support the donor conference being held in Kuwait next month to raise more international funds to assist the plight of the Syrian people.

Martin Horwood: Recent developments in the East China sea are adding to many other concerns about China, including those being expressed about cyber-attacks, Sri Lanka, Syria, climate change and intellectual property rights. Does not this suggest that the west needs a co-ordinated, holistic policy towards China, rather than just a scramble for trade and investment?

William Hague: It is important to be able to raise a wide range of issues with China, as we do. I had an excellent bilateral meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister in Geneva 10 days ago, at which we discussed the full range of our co-operation and the Prime Minister’s visit, as well as issues such as the importance of dialogue on human rights. It is a good thing for both countries to boost trade and investment as we are doing, and we are now taking that to new levels with China, which will greatly help the prosperity of the British people.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Anas Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar: May I repeat the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for the Foreign Secretary to keep the spotlight trained on Syria? People believe that the war is over because Assad has agreed to downgrade his weapons programme, but the conflict and destruction are continuing and people are continuing to die. Can we demonstrate not only that the UK believes in minimising the use of weapons but that we are on the side of the ordinary people who are suffering in that crisis?

William Hague: This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK, through the Department for International Development, has so far allocated £500 million. That is the biggest contribution we have ever made to a single humanitarian crisis, and it requires it. It warrants it because it is, as we heard a moment ago, the biggest humanitarian crisis for decades. So we will do that and we will do more in the future, as well as trying to make sure that the political process of the Geneva peace conference has a chance of success and assisting with the dismantling of the regime’s chemical weapons. All three of those tracks of our work on Syria are very important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. I did try to widen the envelope, but the capacity to do so is not infinite. Just before we come to the statement by the Secretary of State for Education, I must tell the House that I have a short statement to make.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: Yesterday, during the Secretary of State for Scotland’s statement a number of right hon. and hon. Members expressed a wish for a book of condolence for the victims of the helicopter crash in Glasgow to be opened. I have arranged for that to be done. A book of condolence is available now for signature in the Library, and it will remain available until the House rises for the Christmas recess. In the new year, I hope to be able to present it to the city of Glasgow. I hope that that is helpful.

PISA Results

Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your words about the tragedy in Glasgow. Of course, the whole House wishes to associate itself with your expressions of concern and condolence.
	With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the PISA—programme for international student assessment—league tables of educational performance published today by the OECD. Before I go into the detail of what the league tables show about the common features of high-performing school systems, may I take a moment, as I try to in every public statement I make, to thank our teachers for their hard work, dedication and idealism. Whatever conclusions we draw about what needs to change, I hope that we in this House can agree that we are fortunate to have the best generation of young teachers ever in our schools. The data show that the new recruits now entering the classroom are better qualified than ever before. I would like in particular to thank those head teachers who are, through the new school direct programme of teacher training, recruiting more superb new graduates to teach in our state schools.
	Although the quality of our teachers is improving, today’s league tables sadly show that that is not enough. When people ask why—if teachers are better than ever— we need to press ahead with further reform to the system, today’s results make the case more eloquently than any number of speeches. Since the 1990s, our performance in these league tables has been, at best, stagnant, and, at worst, declining. In the latest results, we are 21st in the world for science, 23rd for reading and 26th for mathematics. For all the well-intentioned efforts of past Governments, we are still falling further behind the best-performing school systems in the world. In Shanghai and Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong—indeed even in Taiwan and Vietnam—children are learning more and performing better with every year that passes, leaving our children behind in the global race. That matters because business is more mobile than ever, and employers are more determined than ever to seek out the best-qualified workers. Global economic pressures, far from leading to a race to the bottom, are driving all nations to pursue educational excellence more energetically than ever before. Today’s league tables show that nations that have had the courage radically to reform their education systems, such as Germany and Poland, have significantly improved their performance and their children’s opportunities.
	No single intervention, or indeed single nation, has all the answers to our education challenges. But if we look at all the high-performing and fast-improving education systems, we find that certain common features recur: there is an emphasis on social justice and helping every child to succeed; there is a commitment to an aspirational academic curriculum for all students; there is a high level of autonomy from bureaucracy for head teachers; there is a rigorous system of accountability for performance; and head teachers have the critical power to hire whom they want, remove underperformers and reward the best with the recognition they deserve. Those principles have driven this coalition’s education reforms since 2010.
	The first reform imperative, of course, is securing greater social justice. It is notable that all the high-performing jurisdictions set demanding standards for every child, whatever their background. Germany, in particular, has improved its standing in these league tables by doing more to promote greater equity to ensure that more children from poorer backgrounds catch up with their peers. The good news from the PISA research is that in England we have one of the most progressive and socially just systems of education funding in the world, but we in the coalition Government believe that we must go further to help the most disadvantaged children. That is why we have made funding even more progressive with the pupil premium. We have extended free pre-school education to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds and changed how we hold schools accountable so they have to give even greater attention to the performance of poor children. I hope that today the Opposition will acknowledge those steps forward and give their support to our accountability reforms.
	The second imperative is a more aspirational curriculum. In successful Asian nations, all students are introduced to more stretching maths content at an earlier age than has been the case here. In the fastest-improving European nation, Poland, every child now follows a core academic curriculum to the age of 16. Our new national curriculum is explicitly more demanding, especially in maths, and it is modelled on the approach of high-performing Asian nations such as Singapore. The mathematical content is matched by a new level of ambition in technology, with the introduction of programming and coding on the national curriculum for the first time.
	In our drive to eliminate illiteracy, we have introduced a screening check at age six to make sure that every child is reading fluently. Our introduction of the English baccalaureate, which is awarded to students who secure GCSE passes in English, maths, the sciences, languages and history or geography, matches Poland’s ambition by embedding an expectation of academic excellence for every 16-year-old. I hope today that those on the Labour Front Bench will confirm their support for our new curriculum, the phonics screening check and the English baccalaureate. Our children deserve to have those higher standards adopted universally.
	The third reform imperative is greater autonomy for head teachers. There is a direct correlation in the league tables between freedom for heads and improved results. That is why we have dramatically increased the number of academies and free schools, and given heads more control over teacher training, continuous professional development and the improvement of underperforming schools. The school direct programme, by giving heads control of teacher recruitment, has improved the quality of new teachers. The creation of more than 300 teaching schools has put our most outstanding heads in charge of helping existing teachers to do even better. The academies programme has allowed great heads, such as those in the Harris and Ark chains, to take over underperforming schools such as the Downhills primary in Tottenham. I hope today that those on the Opposition Front Bench will signal their support for these reforms and show that they, like us, trust our outstanding heads to drive improvement.
	The fourth pillar of reform is accountability. Those systems that have autonomy without accountability often underperform. Accountability has to be intelligent, which is why we have sharpened Ofsted inspections,
	recruited more outstanding serving teachers to inspect schools and demanded that underperforming schools improve far faster. The old league table system relied too much on a narrow measurement of C passes at GCSE, which generated the wrong incentives and wrote off too many children. We have changed league tables to ensure that every child’s progress is rewarded. We have also ensured that children are not entered early, or multiple times, for GCSEs simply to influence league tables. I hope today that those on the Opposition Front Bench will endorse those changes and join us in demanding greater rigour and higher standards from all schools.
	The fifth pillar of reform is freedom for heads to recruit and reward the best. Shanghai, the world’s best-performing education system, has a rigorous system of performance-related pay. We have given head teachers the same freedoms here. I hope today that we can have a clear commitment from all parts of the House to support those brave and principled heads who want to pay the best teachers more.
	The programme of reform that we have set out draws on what happens in the best school systems—identified today by the OECD—because we want nothing but the best for our children. Unless we can provide them with a school system that is one of the best in the world, we will not give them the opportunities that they need to flourish and succeed. That is why it is so important that we have a unified national commitment to excellence in all our schools and for all our pupils. I commend this statement to the House.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the Secretary of State both for making Government time available to discuss this important topic and for his statement, which I received 11 minutes ago. I am disappointed that he has adopted—both today and in various media outings—such a partisan approach to the data from PISA. Rather than throwing chum to his Back Benchers, he should concentrate on the lessons we can learn from today’s important study.
	The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. If, as he said in The Daily Telegraph, the Labour party should take its share of the responsibility for these results, would he not agree that it should also take responsibility for, in his words, delivering the
	“best generation of teachers this country has ever seen”?
	It is clear that for all the hard work of our head teachers, teachers, parents and learning support staff, whom the Secretary of State rightly praised, we have a long way to go in English, maths and science to match our global competitors. These findings are a wake-up call for our schools. The PISA data reveal the continuing strength of east Asian countries and although there are important cultural differences that we should seek to understand, there are also pointers to reform in our schools system. So, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the success of Singapore and Shanghai is down to the high quality of teachers in the classroom?
	In Shanghai, all teachers have a teaching qualification and undergo 240 hours of professional development within the first five years of teaching. Under the Secretary of State’s deregulation agenda, the South Leeds academy can advertise for an “unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We have seen a 141% increase in
	unqualified teachers in free schools and academies under this Government, so will he join the Schools Minister and me in working to secure qualified teachers in our classrooms?
	Secondly, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the east Asian education system is that schools work together, collaborate and challenge each other? Under their system, no school is left an island. Will he now abandon his aggressive discredited free-market reforms to schools and follow the Labour party’s lead in developing the kind of middle tier that brings schools together to work with, challenge and collaborate with one another?
	In 2008, the Secretary of State informed the Daily Mail, his journal of choice:
	“We have seen the future in Sweden and it works.”
	Will he confirm today that that is no longer the case? In fact, no other country has fallen as abruptly as Sweden in maths over a 10-year period. Across all three measures—reading, maths and science—since 2009 Sweden has performed very poorly indeed. Many in Sweden regard the ideological programme of unqualified teachers and unregulated free schools as responsible for the drop in standards. The lesson from PISA is clear: we need freedom with accountability, autonomy with minimum standards, or else we end up with the chaos of the Secretary of State’s Al-Madinah school.
	Finally, does the Secretary of State believe that a culture of zero tolerance for low expectations in other education systems produces high results across the board and that no child should be left behind? Will he use this opportunity to join the Deputy Prime Minister and me in condemning the unpleasant whiff of eugenics from the Mayor of London and instead use the opportunity provided by the PISA data to pursue excellence for all, academic and vocational, in all our schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He taxed me for demonstrating partisanship and indulging in personal attacks. I am glad that we had the opportunity to witness four minutes entirely free from those sins.
	First, let me turn to the whole question of qualified teachers. It is the case that there are now fewer unqualified teachers in our schools than under Labour. In 2009, there were 17,400 unqualified teachers, in 2010, just before Labour left office, there were 17,800 and there are now only 14,800, a significant reduction. Indeed, those teachers who are now joining the profession are better qualified than ever before. In 2009, just before the Labour party lost office, only 61% of teachers had a 2:1 or better as their undergraduate degree. Under the coalition Government, the figure is 74%, which is a clear improvement that has been driven by the changes that we have introduced. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the school direct system, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to applaud and welcome—he declined to do so—and which has secured even more top graduates with a 2:1 or better, including a first, in our schools.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sweden. Unfortunately, it is the case that in Sweden results have slid, but as I said earlier, not only do we need to grant greater autonomy, as has been done for school leaders in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere, but we need a more rigorous system of accountability. We heard nothing
	from him on how we would improve accountability. There was no indication as to whether or not he supports, as he has indicated in the past, our English baccalaureate measure. There was no indication from him, as there has been in the past, as to whether or not he supports A-level reform, and there was no indication, as there has been in the past, that he believes in a rigorous academic curriculum for all. The terrible truth about the situation that we face in our schools is that Labour does not have a strong record to defend, and it does not have a strong policy to advance. That is why the coalition Government are committed to reform, and that is why, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman must do better.

Graham Stuart: Today’s figures are extremely sobering. They are indictment of the previous Government’s education policy. There was a massive investment in education, a huge effort was put into education, and we went nowhere. We need to hear from the Secretary of State how his reforms will ensure that in future years—probably not so early as three years from now, but six years from now—we see the change that we require. In particular, will he tell us what he can do to promote maths and science for girls, because we cannot have so many females left behind in this country?

Michael Gove: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education for his wise words. He is absolutely right—there was a significant increase in investment and, as I mentioned in my statement, we have one of the most socially just system of education funding in the developed world. However, we did not move forward as we should have done. My hon. Friend asks, of course, when we will see the fruits of our reform programme. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD asked yesterday: is it too early on the basis of these results to judge the coalition reforms? Absolutely, we could not possibly judge the coalition Government on these results, he said. We are “moving from” ideas “to implementation”, and 2015 would be the very earliest.
	My hon. Friend makes the vital point that we need to do more to promote mathematics and science. The English baccalaureate does that. The increased emphasis in many academies and free schools that have opened under the Government does that, but there is still more that we can do, and I shall meet representatives from higher education and our best schools just before Christmas to see what we can do to encourage more girls to do even better in mathematics and science.

David Blunkett: I think that our young people deserve slightly better than the regrettable remarks from the Chair of the Select Committee.
	In the four years in which I was privileged to serve as Education and Employment Secretary, I tried to persuade the world that it would take time before change achieved results. The world decided that it would hold me to account for the measures that I took. What makes the Secretary of State, after three years and seven months, think that he should not be held to account?

Michael Gove: I absolutely do believe that we should be held to account for the changes that we have made, which is why I look forward to Ofsted’s report in
	a fortnight. It will report on what has changed in the course of the past year, and it will reflect, I believe, improved teaching standards in all our schools. Earlier, I ran through some figures—I know that the right hon. Gentleman took note of them—that recorded the increased number of highly qualified teachers in our classrooms. As I mentioned, Andreas Schleicher pointed out that it would take time for the changes that we have introduced to take effect. Just as members of the Opposition Front Bench want to take account of PISA and the OECD, so they should take account of Andreas Schleicher’s comments, which seem to me to be fair and proportionate, and all of us should draw the right lessons from them.

Nick Gibb: I refer to my interests in the register.
	My right hon. Friend is right to conclude that Britain’s poor standing in the PISA rankings is a reflection of Labour’s education policies and its supine relationship with the teacher unions. Does he share my view that university education faculties, which have trained generations of teachers, should take their share of blame? Should not the Institute of Education and Canterbury Christ Church, two of the biggest teacher training institutions, be held to account, not only for today’s poor figures but for the country’s long tail of underachievement? Education academics are quick to condemn much-needed reform, but there is always a deafening silence from them on days—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We must have short questions and short answers.

Michael Gove: Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last time, my hon. Friend hits several nails squarely on the head.

Stephen Twigg: Twenty years ago, the greatest underachievement in schools in this country was in London and other big cities, which is why the Labour Government introduced programmes such as the London Challenge and Teach First, which the Secretary of State has praised. Andreas Schleicher has talked about autonomy, but he has also talked about collaboration. What have the Government done to implement Ofsted’s report from June, “Unseen children”, which called for new sub-regional challenges modelled on Labour’s London Challenge?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points. It is the case that the London Challenge was a success. Other systems of sub-regional collaboration introduced under the previous Government were less conspicuously successful. If we look at the ingredients of the London Challenge, we find that they were primarily growth in the number of academies, greater autonomy for head teachers and a rigorous approach—[Interruption] —and a greater and more rigorous approach to underperformance in schools that needed new leadership. Through the academies programme, we have ensured that schools across the country that have underperformed are under new leadership. It has been called the “forced academies programme”, and there has been no support for it from those on the Labour Front Bench. I hope that now they will show their support for this rigorous
	attempt to tackle underperformance, but I fear that they will remain silent, and will continue to have their strings pulled by their union paymasters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Nearly 50 colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I fear that many might end up disappointed. If I am to have any chance of accommodating the level of interest, what is needed is a question without preamble—that is to say, a request for information, which might be thought to be the meaning of the word “question”.

Mike Thornton: Does the Secretary of State accept that instead of always looking abroad for good practice he might come to my constituency, where the quality of education is superbly high, as it is in neighbouring constituencies in Hampshire, and he could look at how it achieves the excellence from which my daughter benefited?

Michael Gove: I visited Eastleigh several times in the past 18 months, and I learned a great deal. It is the case, as the hon. Gentleman points out, that in Hampshire there are many excellent schools and sixth-form colleges. It is absolutely right that we should applaud success and excellence in this country as well as abroad.

Pat Glass: Last week, I met Swedish journalists on behalf of the Education Committee, and it is true that they are really worried about their dramatic fall down the international league tables, which they partly blamed on the free school experiment. They told me that their equivalent of Ofsted had closed 20 such schools since September. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is time to learn from such mistakes and puts schools and pupils before ideology?

Michael Gove: It is absolutely the case that there is a difference between Sweden and this country. Sweden did not have an equivalent of Ofsted until 2008, and it does not have the external system of accountability through testing that we have had in this country. Autonomy works, but only with strong accountability, which is why it is important, and why I hope the hon. Lady will encourage her Front Benchers to support the English baccalaureate.

Aidan Burley: The Secretary of State said that a common feature of high-performing schools is their ability to remove underperforming teachers, but between 2001 and 2011 only 17 of England’s 400,000 teachers were judged to be incompetent by the General Teaching Council. What can he do to fight trade union protectionism of failing teachers, and root out all the dead wood?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced a system of more effective performance management and performance-related pay. I hope that the Labour party will support it in the interests of all students.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the message goes out that the reaction to the PISA results is
	positive? The teaching profession and the people who work in and run our schools must know that we have a good education system. It is not perfect, but we undervalue the work that many of our teachers do. At the moment, however, they do not do enough for the 30% lowest-achieving students. That is where we should concentrate our activity.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Peter Bone: A head teacher recently told me, “The Secretary of State is a dreadful person, and absolutely hopeless, but his policies are absolutely right and I’m implementing them with gusto.” Is it better to be right rather than liked?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is both right and liked universally across the House. If I agree with him, I hope that I am right, but I can never aspire to be as liked or as popular as he is.

Margaret Ritchie: When did the Secretary of State last meet the Minister for Education in Northern Ireland to discuss educational performance with an emphasis on the fairer distribution of financial resources?

Michael Gove: I had the opportunity to talk to Minister O’Dowd several months ago, when I also talked to the Welsh Education Minister. It is striking that Northern Ireland is broadly at the same level as England in these results but Labour-run Wales is significantly behind. I think that we can draw the appropriate conclusions about that. I hope to visit Northern Ireland in the new year to talk to head teachers and others about how we can work together to ensure that our examination systems are aligned in a way that promotes social mobility across all these islands in the interests of a truly united kingdom.

Conor Burns: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for yesterday meeting Kate Forbes, an excellent young English teacher from Bourne academy in my constituency, to discuss her ideas for the implementation of grammar in the secondary system. It is people like Miss Forbes, who share his determination that the child should come first, whom we should be listening to in implementing his reforms.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure to meet the teacher from his constituency, who is wholly committed to implementing the reforms we have introduced, utterly committed to raising standards for every child and, to my mind, representative and emblematic of the idealistic and supremely talented young people now entering teaching.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State think that the Singapore authorities would employ untrained teachers, and does he back their system, which sees children put under immense pressure to work from dawn to dusk and beyond to compete with their peers and with us?

Michael Gove: I think that we can learn a great deal from Singapore’s education system, not least the way in which its principals have great flexibility over whom they employ and how they reward them. As for working harder, I think that we have to acknowledge that we all must work harder to ensure that our children have more opportunities in future. We need to explore ways of extending the school day and ensuring that there are greater opportunities for all our children to learn more.

Simon Wright: We have inherited a situation in which the best indicator of a child’s future educational achievement is the parents’ income. Does the Secretary of State agree that until the attainment gap is narrowed, the UK will be unable to make significant leaps up the international league tables?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the weaknesses in our education system, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, and indeed in our whole nation, is the fact that we labour under the problem of having a stratified and segregated schools system, and it is more stratified and segregated than most. One of the things that is helping to tackle that, of course, is the investment in the pupil premium, championed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Schools, which we are happy to implement as part of a coalition Government.

Luciana Berger: In 2010 the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) promised to learn from the best education systems in the world with the most highly qualified teachers, so why have the Government removed the requirement that teachers be qualified to degree level?

Michael Gove: As I pointed out in response to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), there are now more highly qualified teachers than ever before in all our schools. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in championing the reforms we have made, which have brought hope to her constituents, who I am afraid suffered in the past as a result of a failed, leftist, National Union of Teachers orthodoxy, which I hope that she, like me, as a Blairite, will now vigorously condemn.

Craig Whittaker: Is it any wonder that Britain’s youth have not been prepared for the global race? Under Labour, one in every three pupils left primary school unable to read and write, the number of pupils sitting hard-core subjects halved and our employers totally lost faith in our exam system.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the things that has changed under this Government is that more students than ever before are studying physics, chemistry and biology, and we have seen a revival in the number studying modern foreign languages and an increase in the number studying geography and history at GCSE. Those are the subjects that give students the chance to succeed and that advance social mobility. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will at last endorse the English baccalaureate, which has driven those changes.

Paul Goggins: May I remind the Secretary of State that in the mid-1990s some schools in my constituency had roofs that leaked
	and fewer than 10% of their pupils got five or more good GCSEs? Will he acknowledge that at the core of the many improvements that have taken place since has been a teaching work force who are both highly motivated and properly qualified?

Michael Gove: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that one of the things we need to do is ensure that there is proper investment in every part of our schools system. That is why it is so important that the PISA report confirms that we have one of the most socially just systems of education funding. It is also critically important that we have reduced the cost of new school building so that we can spread our investment more equitably. He is right about more highly qualified teachers, which is why it is good that there are more graduates with better degrees than ever before in our schools.

Andrew Percy: The Secretary of State has rightly highlighted the need for exam reform, but when I taught year 1 it was obvious that too many children turned up ill-prepared and ill-equipped for school compared with their peers, so early intervention is really important. I urge him to look closely at the imagination library model we have set up in North Lincolnshire, which now provides free books every month to 3,500 children in the area.

Michael Gove: It sounds like a fantastic initiative, and it reinforces the additional investment we have made in the early years.

Jenny Chapman: Is there any connection between the fact that the UK is struggling in international league tables when trying to develop a globally competitive work force and the fact that there are unqualified maths teachers in our schools?

Michael Gove: We have more highly qualified teachers in our schools than ever before, particularly in mathematics.

Simon Kirby: Does my right hon. Friend remember visiting Falmer high school in my constituency, which has now been replaced by the excellent Brighton Aldridge community academy, which is driving up standards and improving chances for young people who really need it?

Michael Gove: I do remember visiting that school and applaud my hon. Friend’s commitment to advancing educational achievement for all students. Let me take this opportunity to thank Rod Aldridge and all the sponsors behind the academies programme, who have done so much to tackle underperformance in our weaker schools. They are heroes.

Meg Munn: The Secretary of State has said that accountability should be intelligent, but for too many schools in my constituency the Ofsted inspections over the past decade have not felt intelligent. They have failed to take account of the progress that has been made and the ability of the schools to progress further, focusing instead on an attainment level. Is it not now time to reform the process so that real improvement can be supported and encouraged further?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The chief inspector agrees with her, as do I. We are changing the way schools are measured in league tables in order to ensure that it is progress that matters, rather than simply raw attainment. Ofsted inspections are becoming more sophisticated, with more serving senior leaders conducting them.

Duncan Hames: We see in these results that in the highest-performing countries children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more than twice as likely as similarly disadvantaged children in the UK to make it into the world’s top quartile in mathematics. Does that not demonstrate how necessary it is that we have the additional pupil premium money, ensuring that every child has a decent chance to get on in life?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The investment in the pupil premium, the investment in additional pre-school education for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds and a concentration on helping students who are falling behind in year 6 at the end of primary school to catch up—all policies championed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Schools—are integral to advancing social mobility.

Adrian Bailey: One of the most serious issues is the disparity between the achievement of boys and girls in maths and science, which is the result of deep-seated cultural and educational bias within the system. One of the ways of addressing that is to engage businesses, particularly manufacturing, in schools and to have schools assessed on their ability to get students into vocational as well as academic occupations. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to take up the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recommendation on that. Will the Secretary of State look at it again?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is vital that we build on and improve the links between business and schools. The university technical colleges programme is designed to do just that, but there is much more we can do. I have been talking recently to Sir Charlie Mayfield, of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, to see how we can go even further. Of course, it is vital that we all embed the reforms set out in Alison Wolf’s report, which are designed to improve technical education and ensure that all education is more relevant to the work of business.

Angela Watkinson: Last week I attended an inspirational awards evening at Hall Mead academy in my constituency, where the pupils are high achievers not only in academic subjects but in sport, drama, music, art and social and interpersonal skills. Does that not demonstrate how the Secretary of State’s reforms have given head teachers the freedom to enable their standards to rise continuously?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no tension between academic excellence and a rich range of extra-curricular activities; in fact, they reinforce each other, as the best schools recognise, including the academy in her constituency.

Derek Twigg: Between 1998 and 2010 in constituencies like mine, there were significant improvements in educational attainment and the quality of school buildings and equipment, due partly to the hard work of teachers, the support of the local authority, and the core funding that was put in. What is the Secretary of State doing to promote collaboration between these excellent and outstanding schools and head teachers and other schools, and what happened to the promise of £35 million in 2010?

Michael Gove: We are doing that through academy chains, multi-academy trusts, and the establishment of teaching school alliances. There are now more than 300 teaching schools, which have head teachers who are working with underperforming schools to provide continuous professional development and to enhance the quality of every interaction between every teacher and every child. The programme is being led by the inspirational head of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, Charlie Taylor.

Tony Baldry: I gather that this morning my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to listen to the piece on the “Today” programme about maths in Singapore. It is difficult to believe that children in Singapore necessarily have any greater cognitive skills than their UK counterparts, so I wonder what work is being done to look at the process and technique of teaching mathematics in Singapore to see whether any lessons need to be learned.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some schools, including academies and free schools such as those established by the ARK chain, explicitly use the Singaporean mathematics curriculum, but our new national curriculum has also been informed by practice not only in Singapore but in other high-performing jurisdictions.

Sammy Wilson: These figures will mask a lot of differences between the performance of children from different economic backgrounds. Given that children from poor backgrounds tend to perform much less well because of economic and educational disadvantage, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the performance of those children is improved and that resources are made available to them?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is a teacher himself, so he knows how important it is to make sure that learning is targeted at children in an appropriate way to recognise the different abilities that different children have at different stages in their lives. Through the pupil premium, we are making sure that more money is spent at every stage of a child’s life if they come from a poorer background. We are also changing the way in which league tables operate so that more schools have to pay more attention to children from underprivileged backgrounds to ensure that we get the most out of them.

Stephen Metcalfe: An outstanding school is invariably led by an outstanding head teacher. What steps is my right hon.
	Friend taking to ensure that every school has an outstanding head teacher? Will he consider introducing a system that allows excellent teachers who have been promoted to head teacher to move back down if they do not have the necessary skills to be an excellent head?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not necessary to be an outstanding head teacher to be an outstanding contributor to excellence in one or in many schools. It is important that we recognise the different ways in which teachers can be celebrated. Our system of performance-related pay will ensure that people who are outstanding and want to lead and to exemplify great teaching will be rewarded appropriately. I therefore hope that Labour Members will support it.

Chris Williamson: The Secretary of State keeps claiming that there has been a reduction in the number of unqualified teachers, but will he confirm that there has been a whopping 141% increase in unqualified teachers in academies and free schools and explain how that will improve our international standing?

Michael Gove: There has been a significant reduction in the number of unqualified teachers overall. However, some schools in the free schools programme were formerly independent schools that did not have teachers with qualified teacher status. For example, University College school in Hampstead has had teachers who did not have qualified teacher status, as have outstanding schools like Liverpool College that are now in the state system. I am very glad that, thanks to the work of Lord Adonis in the other place, schools like Liverpool College have now entered the state system. We are nationalising these private schools, and that is a worthwhile, progressive goal with which, I hope, Labour Front Benchers would agree.

Chris Skidmore: What lessons does the Secretary of State take from the widening discrepancy in the PISA tests between English pupils and pupils in Labour-run Wales?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am afraid that in Wales, a country for which I have enormous affection, the Welsh Labour Government chose to abandon league tables and external accountability. The current Welsh Administration are unfortunately not matching our commitment to spending in schools. The conclusion that we can draw is that if people want to know what our education system would be like if the country were foolishly to vote Labour at the next election, they need only look over the Severn to see a country going backwards.

Yvonne Fovargue: Can the Secretary of State explain how the appointment of an unqualified maths teacher will help to design and deliver a course with a more stretching mathematical content?

Michael Gove: The fact that there are more highly qualified teachers in our schools than ever before is a very good thing that I hope the hon. Lady would support. If she is referring to South Leeds academy, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) did, the advertisement was misleading: it was not
	advertising for unqualified teachers but advertising for classroom assistants who would train in due course, as classroom assistants currently do. If the hon. Gentleman contacted the school, he would know that he has made a mistake. I hope that he will contact the school to apologise for his unfair and inaccurate depiction of the situation and show himself to be big enough to apologise for having got something wrong.

Therese Coffey: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, while English schools have sadly fallen down the league tables, GCSE rates have soared?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Last time the OECD issued a report, I am afraid that Opposition Front Benchers rubbished it because, so they said, GCSE results improved under Labour. It is therefore clearly the case that our children are significantly more literate and numerate. The truth is that there was improvement under the previous Government, but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out, there was also grade inflation. That grade inflation has been laid bare by international studies showing that while we have improved, other countries have improved far faster, and it is vitally important that we recognise that and learn from them.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The results in Wales are disappointing, but they are also disappointing in other parts of the UK, so making political capital is the wrong approach. Does the Secretary of State agree that a common lesson is the need to focus relentlessly on underperformance, and that that is a job not just for governors, head teachers and school teachers but for parents, communities and political leaders, not least those in areas of deprivation and disadvantage?

Michael Gove: I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s conclusion. I would say, however, that the Welsh Administration chose to follow a different path than the reformist path set out by Tony Blair in his education White Paper in 2006. Labour in government deliberately got rid of Tony Blair and abandoned the path of reform during its last three years in office. There is now an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman, who calls himself a Blairite, to embrace reform by agreeing with us. I hope that he will, and that he will learn the lesson from history and from Wales that if you abandon reform, the electorate abandon you.

Justin Tomlinson: Will performance-related pay help to incentivise heads and teachers to hold teacher training days during the school holidays and not on the first day of term? [Interruption.]

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes not only an acute but a popular point. An interesting thing about the situation in Shanghai is that teacher training—20 days of it, in fact—takes place during the summer holidays. I am not suggesting that we embark on that road now, but I would underline that when we are learning lessons from abroad, we need to acknowledge the vital importance of making sure that continuous professional development is implemented in a way that helps teachers and takes account of parents’ needs.

Meg Hillier: If Hackney schools’ results were extrapolated nationally, we would be about third in the international league tables. That is a direct result of inspired Labour local political leadership, collaboration between excellent head teachers, and the right sort of Government support. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that such collaboration is nationalised—to use his word—so that children of all abilities and backgrounds across the country are achieving as they are in Hackney, where the poorest children are progressing as well as the richest?

Michael Gove: I have often had the opportunity in the past to draw attention to how well Hackney performs and, indeed, how effectively Hackney is represented in this House by its two MPs when it comes to educational matters. As both the hon. Lady and her parliamentary neighbour acknowledge, it is an emphasis on academic excellence and, indeed, the growth in academy schools that has driven Hackney’s improvement. It is really important that she keeps her Front-Bench colleagues honest by making sure that they back academic excellence and the spread of academisation.

Guto Bebb: The Secretary of State has rightly touched on the comparative poor performance in Wales. Would he blame that primarily on the fact that we have a £600 per head funding gap as a result of Labour policy or on the fact that the Labour Government in Cardiff have accepted teaching union dogma for the past 15 years?

Michael Gove: Both.

Ian Austin: These figures are actually further evidence of the lamentable failure of successive Governments and our country in general to take education seriously enough, so will the Secretary of State set aside his partisan point scoring and agree that what this country needs is a royal commission in order to get cross-party agreement and the support of the teaching profession, business and parents to make education our No.1 priority and to back policies and long-term funding to transform the quality of education our children receive?

Michael Gove: I have a lot of time and admiration for the hon. Gentleman. I am not in favour of a royal commission. As someone once said, royal commissions take minutes and last years. I agree that we need a sense of national urgency and a unified commitment to raising standards. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees in almost every respect with the details of our educational reform, and I look forward to working with him further in the future.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend has highlighted that the best educational systems feature high levels of autonomy. What freedoms is he giving to head teachers to help them get the very best out of pupils?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the academies programme, head teachers have the freedom—as is being used in the King Solomon academy in one of the most deprived parts of London—to vary the curriculum in order to make it fit the needs of
	individual students. We are also giving all schools greater freedom over who they recruit and how they reward them, in order to make sure that we continue to have more and more talented people in our classrooms.

Debbie Abrahams: Andreas Schleicher also said that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers. How does a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies help improve quality?

Michael Gove: As I pointed out in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the increase in the number of unqualified teachers in academies and free schools is a direct result of the nationalisation of independent schools. Overall, the reduction under this Government in the number of teachers without teaching qualifications reflects the fact that teachers are now better qualified than ever before. Critically, the decision over who to hire should be a matter for head teachers. It is critical to the success of any education system that we respect the autonomy of great head teachers to recruit people with the right qualifications for their community and students.

Guy Opperman: The Secretary of State will recall meeting some of the outstanding head teachers in Northumberland with me and then authorising the rebuild of Prudhoe community high school. Does he agree with me, Lord Adonis and the other authors of the Adonis report that there is scope for a London challenge-type approach in the north-east?

Michael Gove: A lot needs to be done in the north-east in order to improve education. One thing we need to do is ensure that local authorities end their opposition to academisation and free schools and that there is a degree of collaboration among autonomous head teachers who are determined to drive up standards, as we have seen in London.

Gavin Shuker: The architect of PISA has demonstrated categorically that the lowest-performing schools in the OECD have autonomy but not a collaborative culture. Is that not the perfect description of the Secretary of State’s reform programme?

Michael Gove: No. The perfect description of our reform programme is that it is based on social justice and recognises that the strongest systems combine autonomy with stricter accountability. We have introduced stricter accountability through changes both to Ofsted and to league tables. Unfortunately, those on the Labour Front Bench have not endorsed those changes to help drive up standards. They should be listening to outstanding head teachers who have the right idea, such as Dame Yasmin Bevan in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The sooner he introduces her to his Front-Bench colleagues, the better for all of us.

Steve Brine: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that our primary school children are taught by men as well as women, and will he confirm that the number of men training to be primary school teachers is on the rise?

Michael Gove: It is absolutely right that we encourage more men to consider teaching, particularly in primary schools, as an aspirational profession. I am delighted that there has been an increase in the number of highly talented men entering primary teaching.

Damian Hinds: Although it may be politically attractive to try to scare people with the red herring of unqualified teachers, is this not really a question of trusting heads? Non-qualified teacher status teachers have long existed in the state sector, but they are relatively few in number and fewer now than under the previous Government. As it happens, the most improved region—London—employs the most.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically well-informed point. One of the revealing things over the past 50 minutes or so is that some Labour MPs have been wise enough to acknowledge that there is a great deal of common ground between both parties on the need to reform our schools system, but those Labour MPs who have asked critical questions have criticised us on only one thing and they have used statistics that, I am afraid, simply mislead.

Philip Hollobone: In maths, science and reading, Poland is at least 10 places above us in the international league tables. Does Poland spend more than us on education? If not, what is it doing that we could emulate?

Michael Gove: Poland does not spend more than us; indeed, Vietnam, which outperforms us in mathematics, spends significantly less than us. What they do have is a commitment to higher standards that are rigorously policed. Poland’s curriculum is modelled on, or is similar to, our English baccalaureate. Both Vietnam and Poland have a determination to place standards on a higher plane than those on the Opposition Front Bench would contemplate.

Alun Cairns: Does the Secretary of State agree that the outcomes in Wales are nothing short of a scandal and that they are the ultimate demonstration of Labour’s education policy in action? There are parents across Wales, and even some in this House, who are genuinely worried about the future of their children’s education. Will the Secretary of State encourage the Welsh Government to follow his robust reforms?

Michael Gove: Wales acts almost as a controlled sample. Welsh children are as intelligent and motivated as children in England, but unfortunately in Wales there are no academies, no free schools, no league tables, no chief inspector such as Sir Michael Wilshaw and no determination to reform like this coalition Government. It is an object lesson in what happens when people abandon reform and succumb to the NUT orthodoxy, which I am afraid has suffocated aspiration for far too many children in the Principality.

Robert Halfon: University technical schools have huge potential to transform education through their emphasis on technical education, vocation and science and mathematics. Such a school will open in Harlow next year. Will my right hon. Friend expand
	the university technical school programme even further in order that young people may gain the vocational and technical expertise from which they will benefit?

Michael Gove: University technical colleges are an excellent innovation and we want to make sure that there are more high-performing UTCs.

Mr Speaker: I am pleased to say that 45 Back Benchers contributed in only 36 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which is a commentary on the succinctness of both the questions and the answers. I thank colleagues for that.

Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

Mr Speaker: On a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare, I call Dr Hywel Francis.

Hywel Francis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 9 October, I spoke in the debate on part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. I made it clear in my speech that I was doing so on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I Chair. With hindsight, even though I was speaking on behalf of my Committee, I now recognise that I should have drawn the House’s attention to my personal declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to a relevant registered donation. I therefore apologise to the House for that omission.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Decarbonisation

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ian Murray: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the setting of a decarbonisation target for the UK; and for connected purposes.
	It is incumbent on this House and every Member to ensure that future generations do better than the generation before. That is no truer than in the area of climate change and the significant impact it will have on communities in the UK and all over the world. We have seen in recent years a considerable rise in natural disasters caused by freak weather, none more so than the recent tragedy in the Philippines. We must not lose sight of the fact that the effects of climate change and high energy prices are felt most acutely by the poorest in our societies. That is why this House should take the opportunity to do all it can to ensure that we decarbonise our energy and make a contribution to addressing the deepening climate crisis.
	In the next decade, a quarter of Britain’s power stations are set to close and £200 billion-worth of investment is required to supply the UK’s energy needs. On this Government’s watch, however, there has been a collapse in clean energy investment. The much referred to independent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that investment in renewable energy has fallen dramatically since 2010: in 2009, investment in clean energy reached $11.06 billion; this year, investment is likely to be less than $3 billion, which is the lowest level since 2006. Some very high-profile projects have been cancelled or delayed that our energy generation and economy can ill afford to lose. Those figures should disturb any hon. Member who cares about clean and affordable energy.
	In October, a group of investors responsible for more than £1 trillion of investment worldwide wrote to the Government to argue that leaving a decarbonisation target out of the Energy Bill inhibits investment decisions and negatively impacts on the UK’s ability to attract the capital needed to update its “ageing infrastructure”. Aviva, one of the UK’s largest institutional investors, has said that a target must be set before 2016—the Government have implied that that will be the date—otherwise investment will be fundamentally affected.
	The Bill would set in legislation a decarbonisation target to give the energy generation sector the boost it requires by giving it the certainty to invest. That certainty is essential to the researchers and academics, spin-out companies and start-ups, in my constituency. Edinburgh South is home to the university of Edinburgh’s King’s Buildings, a base for pioneering low-carbon development that hosts industries, companies and the university’s world-leading low-carbon technology research and development centre. On regular visits to the campus, it has been made clear to me that future funding depends on a clear policy direction from this Government. I am introducing the Bill to launch my “Hit the target” campaign for decarbonisation.
	The Energy Bill has almost concluded its passage through the House, with Lords amendments being considered tomorrow. There has been a robust debate
	about putting a decarbonisation target into that Bill, and doing so would have shown strong commitment and leadership on this important issue. The target is not, however, just about showing strong leadership in the fight against climate change, but about developing a new and dynamic green economy that puts the UK at the forefront of low-carbon technology, so developing the skills and jobs of the future and diversifying the economy to ensure that it delivers for everyone.
	A clear decarbonisation target would help to stimulate green growth in the economy, tackle spiralling energy bills, improve energy security and, of course, reduce our carbon footprint. Not having my Bill might leave households even more vulnerable to completely unnecessary increases in their energy bills, and cause Britain to miss out on vital new clean energy jobs.
	I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for supporting the Bill. Given such cross-party consensus and the fact that the Government want, at least in principle, to set a decarbonisation target, I cannot see why that should not be achieved. My Bill is intended to ensure that the target is put into primary legislation. It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State—incidentally, he used to support this stance—to be given the power to set a target at some point after 2016, and for the legislation to state that he may, and I emphasise “may”, then decide to set a target.
	A decarbonisation target is supported by a wide range of experts, including hundreds of businesses, investors, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, faith groups, trade unions and, critically, energy companies, including SSE and EDF. They have clearly stated:
	“A sector-specific target for 2030 would give investors a clear signal about the direction of energy policy after 2020 and encourage greater investment in UK-based supply chains.”
	Critically, decarbonising power is the gateway to the decarbonisation of other sectors. We can ill afford more of the Government indecision that we have witnessed on feed-in tariffs, which almost brought the industry for solar power crashing to its knees overnight.
	If we do not decarbonise the power sector, we have no hope of meeting our climate change targets. The Climate Change Act 2008, brought in by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, committed the UK to a legally binding reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet the 2050 target, the influential Committee on Climate Change has since recommended that the power sector be decarbonised by 2030. In practice, that means reducing average emissions in power generation from 486g of CO2 per kWh to 50g of CO2 per kWh by 2030.
	The danger of missing our carbon targets was echoed by the Prime Minister in 2010, when he endorsed the decarbonisation of the electricity sector by 2030, and said:
	“If we don’t decarbonise electricity we’ve got no hope of meeting all the targets that we are all committed to.”
	Such a target is also good for consumers. During my weekly surgery just last Friday, a pensioner told me in no uncertain terms that this winter she faces having to decide whether to heat her home or to eat, which is surely unacceptable.
	The Bill would sit alongside Labour’s 10-point plan for energy, which will fundamentally transform the energy market in the UK, freeze energy prices and make
	energy more affordable, while helping the industry to invest and plan for the future. One could say that this is the greenest Opposition ever.
	The Bill has three key components: first, that a target will be set in 2014; secondly, that the target will be met by 2030; and, thirdly, taking advice from the Committee on Climate Change, that emissions will be reduced to between 50g CO2 per kWh and 100g CO2 per kWh. The Bill is very simple, but it clearly says that we will give investors certainty, that we care about climate change and jobs in the green economy, and that we want security of supply and cheaper and more efficient energy. Finally, my constituents want it to be implemented urgently, and the House should support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Ian Murray, Dr Julian Huppert, Mark Durkan, Dr Alan Whitehead, Diana Johnson, Ann McKechin, Caroline Lucas, Andrew George, Joan Walley, Albert Owen, Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore present the Bill.
	Ian Murray accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 141).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[14th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Cyber-bullying

David Simpson: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the serious problem of cyber-bullying and the appalling consequences for an increasing number of children and young people who are its victims; and calls on the Government to take action to help eradicate this form of intimidation and harassment, including the consideration of legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.
	I rise to speak on the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do so in the reassuring knowledge that it is more than likely, I trust, that in the general thrust of a debate on cyber-bullying, party political differences will, for the most part, be set to one side. I say that not out of any sense of presumption, but it is borne of my experiences as a Member of this House and of the united opposition of all parties to the growing phenomena of cyber-bullying and internet trolling.
	Let us remind ourselves that cyber-bullying is the use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending intimidating or threatening messages. Most hon. Members in the Chamber have access to a mobile phone, an iPad and other electronic devices, which we rely on in carrying out our responsibilities as elected representatives. Our phones and mobile devices are all equipped with software that allows even the most novice of users to browse the internet, and if we so wish, to communicate via social media.
	I engage with my constituents via social media daily. Today, technology allows me to reach out and express my views to thousands of people at the click of a button. That is a very useful tool, but the fact that a person can reach out to thousands of people by the click of a button is a harrowing one for approximately 65% of teenagers. We will be blinded by facts and figures in this debate, but they must all be aired to hit home what a problem cyber-bullying is and what a lasting effect it has. We hear more and more reports of young people who take their own lives as a result of bullying, and cyber-bullying in particular.
	I arranged to meet Dr Arthur Cassidy, who heads up an organisation in my constituency called the Yellow Ribbon. Dr Cassidy is involved in UK-wide research into cyber-bullying and internet trolling. He has carried out comprehensive research on the effects of bullying on young people, including the long-term effects on the development of its victims. Recent reports have found that approximately 65% of teenagers say that they have experienced online bullying or trolling, with the most common form being cruel posts that comment on the way that someone is dressed or on what they look like. Some 48% of those teenagers said that it had made them feel very upset. More than half of that 65% said that it was happening to them at least once a week.
	The anonymity permitted by certain forms of online social interaction can give bullies the false impression that they can say anything they wish, no matter how hurtful, with little consequence for themselves or for the person they might have harmed. Children have the right to feel safe and secure, particularly when they are at
	school. Schoolchildren are still developing and do not always have the wisdom to avoid cyber-bullying or to seek out the best solutions or help in dealing with this issue.
	In October, I contacted every post-primary school in my constituency and asked each school to identify two student representatives to sit on a forum to discuss cyber-bullying. The meeting was attended by Dr Arthur Cassidy, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the community safety partnership and some parents. I thank them all for their help. I felt that it was essential to engage with young people and to hear their views on how social media affect them both positively and negatively.
	Many of the children emphasised how difficult it can be to find help when they have been bullied and to get adults to listen to them. They said that many adults do not understand social media and that more should be done to educate parents and teachers about cyber-bullying. I was very impressed by the openness of the young people at the forum. I was hesitant when it was brought together, because I did not think that they would open up in such a forum, but they did. On that day, I made a commitment to those young people that I would do whatever I could as their Member of Parliament to urge the Government to take whatever steps were needed to tackle this growing phenomenon.
	I am pleased to say that steps have been taken in my constituency to address the problem. A workshop is scheduled to take place tomorrow evening to offer advice to parents who are concerned about keeping up to date with modern technology and who want to know what they can do to keep their children safe online. I commend the children and young people’s strategic partnership for its role in making that happen.
	We need to work together to eradicate cyber-bullying. The venom that a cyber-bully produces has been proven to leave long-term effects and to make the lives of their victims miserable. Many victims succumb to anxiety, depression and other stress-related disorders. The anonymity and protection of distance makes it easier to push the boundaries and to provoke and taunt with practically no accountability.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this important subject. I am interested to hear of the progress that he is making with schools in his constituency. Is not part of the problem the lack of confidence among parents of my generation, older generations and even younger generations, who lack the technological savvy to tackle the problem head-on with their children? Schools have a responsibility to educate not just children, but parents so that they know how to educate and look after their children.

David Simpson: Progress is being made on that. Our forum will meet again in the second week of January to hear an update. Hopefully we will see more movement from the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that in today’s society, talking is almost a thing of the past between parents and their children. They do not interact in the way that they used to. Parents do not understand such things—I
	am one of them. Because of the generation that I grew up in, I still use just one finger on an iPad, let alone on a full computer. A lot of education is needed.

Sammy Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Simpson: My hon. Friend had the same sort of education as me and, although he is an economist, I know that he has the same one-finger problem with computers.

Sammy Wilson: I assure my hon. Friend that I will never be cyber-bullied because I do not have access to the means by which I could be cyber-bullied, nor do I wish to have it. He has talked about the impact on pupils. Does he also accept that one in 10 teachers has been bullied online—however that is done—which can affect their teaching and make them fear for their families?

David Simpson: My hon. Friend is correct that this problem affects not only children, but young adults and older folk. I mentioned Dr Cassidy. Without going into too much detail, he has to deal with such bullying on the mainland at least once a year in relation to TV personalities who appear on some of the hottest programmes on a Saturday night. He has to deal with that issue with the BBC and UTV. My hon. Friend is correct that teachers are abused in this way as well, and that needs to be dealt with.
	The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that 80,000 children in the United Kingdom suffer from severe depression. That includes 8,000 children under the age of 10. We as a society need to take responsibility for preventing harmful and antisocial behaviour such as cyber-bullying and for dealing effectively with incidents of virtual violence. We need an integrated approach in which Government, schools, parents, internet service providers and charities work together to keep the most vulnerable people safe.

Andrew Percy: I was hoping to speak in this debate, but at 2 o’clock I have to attend the Public Bill Committee considering the Water Bill and the Health Committee simultaneously, which will be interesting. I wanted to raise with the hon. Gentleman the responsibility of those who host the websites. A 17-year-old constituent of mine, Kira Lisseter, came to me after comments were posted on a US website, littlegossip.com. We wrote to the Minister, who was very helpful and did all that he could. We also tried to raise the matter with the internet service provider and the hosts, but response came there none. The hon. Gentleman is right that we can do a lot through education and Government action, but we also need the people who host the websites to be far more responsible.

David Simpson: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The hosts need to be brought to book in respect of how they operate. They have to realise what this problem is doing to young people.

Rehman Chishti: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on initiating this debate. To follow on from the previous point, I have seen constituents who have had fake
	Twitter accounts set up in their name, which have been linked to bullying. They do not know what others are saying using that account. Does he agree that a key point is that there needs to be greater verification of people who set up accounts, and that anonymous accounts that cannot be linked or traced should not be allowed?

David Simpson: Absolutely. There needs to be proper accountability and due diligence when Twitter or other accounts are set up, because the problem causes major difficulties for people in general, not just children.
	A girl of 13 said:
	“It is worse being bullied over the internet because everyone can see and it makes you feel little and small and worthless.”
	As I have said, the problem does not just affect children or teenagers. A girl of 21 said:
	“They would call me horrendous names, spreading rumours and behind my back tell people to ignore me online. Other times they would add me to a big group conversation online and really dig into me. They also hacked in to my account and I was sent a really aggressive email from a group of girls”.
	Another child said:
	“I felt that no one understood what I was going through. I didn’t know who was sending me these messages, and I felt powerless to know what to do.”
	In August, the Prime Minister spoke out, saying:
	“The people that operate these websites have got to step up to the plate and show some responsibility in the way that they run these websites.”
	With respect, the Government, too, must step up to the plate and impose strict regulations on internet service providers, social network sites and mobile phone networks, to ensure that we eradicate the problem at the root. As the motion suggests, they should consider introducing legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.
	The Canadian Government are already actively combating cyber-bullying and have recently amended their online crime Act to bring it up to date with modern technology, although I understand that there is still some controversy about the legislation, with young activists and child psychologists voicing concerns that the public may have been misled into thinking that it would deal with cyber-bullying, whereas they see it as only a partial solution. However, it is something to work on and build on. I understand that the Republic of Ireland is also considering legislation to make cyber-bullying a crime.
	The Government might recognise the impact of cyber-bullying, but there is no specific UK law that makes cyber-bullying illegal. I understand that it can be considered a criminal offence under legislation such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but there is no specific law to deal with it.

Steve Rotheram: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should define clearly the term “cyber-bullying”, which is different from cyber-stalking, trolling or other online offences, so that we can see where the boundaries of that behaviour lie and change people’s behaviour online? Many people hide behind the anonymity of a computer to do things online that they would not do to him, me or anyone else face to face.

David Simpson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to define cyber-bullying, and there needs to be a criminal offence. Those who receive sentences get 17 or 18 weeks, which is nothing, and are then out again and reoffending—it is a badge of honour. Something drastic needs to be done to eradicate the problem.
	We must prioritise the development of a strategy to educate both parents and children. There is absolutely no time to waste, because all the studies that have been done have reached a similar conclusion: cyber-bullying is a dramatically growing trend, not just a passing phase. It is seriously damaging young people’s self-esteem and future prospects and having a negative impact on their performance at school and their health. It will continue to grow if we do not act fast. Work needs to be done to make ways of reporting such hate crimes more accessible. Children, young people and the vulnerable need to know that when they require help, support is already in place for them, and adults need to be there not only to offer that support but to be role models of respectable behaviour.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) for tabling this important motion and for his measured and serious speech. It was good to hear about the work that he is doing in his constituency to encourage the education of parents about technology. Although it might be true that adults are not as technologically savvy as their teenage children, the debate shows that adults, particularly him, take a strong interest in children’s welfare, especially given the new and venomous trend of cyber-bullying.
	It goes without saying that we must take bullying in general, and cyber-bullying in particular, very seriously. I therefore welcome the opportunity to have this debate so that I can listen to the House’s views and set out some of the initiatives that the Government are taking to combat cyber-bullying.
	It is good to see the House debating the subject, and it goes without saying that bullying is high on parents’ lists of concerns about their children when they are at school. We know that the impact of bullying can be devastating for those who are bullied, sometimes with the most tragic of consequences. Cyber-bullying is often an extension of bullying that takes place at school, and the fact that it can follow those being bullied to their home, giving them no respite or refuge, makes it all the more insidious and harmful. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the anonymity and distance provided online provoke an almost unintelligible venom. I am not an apologist for physical bullying, but we almost cannot imagine such venom were the bully and the bullied face to face. That takes cyber-bullying to another level of insidiousness.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, our children now have great access to the internet. There is internet access in virtually every household—91%—in which children live, and more teenagers than adults own smartphones as a proportion of their population. Developing children’s skills in this digital age is therefore incredibly important. It is also worth reminding the House of how quickly the phenomenon has come upon us. I fought my first election in 2005, when I became a relatively young and junior Member, without YouTube and Twitter and virtually
	without Facebook. Facebook came into being in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. Now those and a plethora of other sites are integral to the lives not just of Members but of the children who use them. Ensuring that children can use those technologies safely is incredibly important and will become increasingly so.
	The hon. Gentleman referred, as does the motion, to creating a specific crime of cyber-bullying. I certainly took on board what he said, and the hon. Member for Everton—

Steve Rotheram: Liverpool, Walton.

Edward Vaizey: Sorry, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—I always think of him as the hon. Member for Everton because of his stalwart support for that team—made the point that the Government should define cyber-bullying. It is important to be clear that Governments should not legislate where legislation is unnecessary. We will continue to listen to his case, but as he said, current legislation is in use.
	To add to the Acts already mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, the Communications Act 2003 makes it illegal to send menacing messages, and in 2012 there were 2,000 prosecutions for that offence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidance on defining cyber-bullying—certainly on trolling—and prosecutors are not afraid to take action when there is a clear case of malicious attacks on the internet.

Steve Rotheram: Does the Minister therefore regret the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to raise the threshold for prosecutions against those who commit such offences online?

Edward Vaizey: I think it was right for the DPP and CPS to consult extensively on the issue, and to make a considered decision. The risk of almost limitless potential prosecutions must be balanced against the need for a credible policy and credible prosecutions. I am sure the debate on that will continue, but I think the process was carefully considered and not rushed into. Neither was there any wish to underestimate the impact of some of the cyber-bullying.

David Simpson: Does the Minister agree that although legislation can be used, it is not stopping the problem? Cyber-bullying is a growing trend and a virus that is sweeping the country. Surely something more radical needs to be done to protect our young people.

Edward Vaizey: As I said, as well as setting out what the Government are doing, I am here to listen to views from all sides of the House. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, I hope this will be a thoughtful debate about something on which Members are united, which is to see this venomous trend—to use his powerful adjective—curtailed in the best way we can. On the criminal element, as I understand, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will include a new offence of causing nuisance and annoyance and there will be the opportunity for someone to get an antisocial behaviour order against people who cause nuisance and annoyance. That can also be used in cases of cyber-bullying.
	As well as criminal law, it is important to consider the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his excellent opening remarks, including the whole ecology that exists in terms of we in society uniting to combat this scourge. I hear what he says about cyber-bullying being a growing threat, and I welcome his constructive suggestions—for example, he made a point about doing rather than talking in the work to educate parents in his constituency.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend said that nuisance and annoyance may be covered by new legislation, but we are talking not about that but about downright abuse that can lead some people to commit suicide. Can he tell the House how many people have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003 for offences that this House would recognise as forms of cyber-bullying?

Edward Vaizey: I would hesitate to answer that question in the detail that my hon. Friend requires, at the risk of misleading the House. As I said a few minutes ago, my understanding is that there were 2,000 prosecutions last year. I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but I will write to him if he requires that. The fundamental point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that under existing legislation prosecutions are taking place for what you or I would recognise as cyber-bullying.
	It is important to involve everyone in society in combating this threat. That includes the Government, of course, but also parents, teachers and the industry, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned. As he knows, the previous Government established the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—UKCCIS—which has continued to work with this Government, bringing together three Ministers: myself, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who will wind-up the debate, and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. The council brings together industry, academia, charities, parents groups, and law enforcement under three Ministers.
	It is often said—again, I would welcome any critique of this—that the UK is a pioneer in internet safety, and my experience of working in the field is that we are highly regarded around the world for the work we do. That does not, I hasten to add, signal any sense of complacency on our part, but it shows that we are proactive about the issue, as were the previous Government.

Steve Rotheram: That long list of organisations the Minister is consulting does not include the social media platforms, although they are pivotal to changing the online culture. What are the Government doing to engage with Facebook, Twitter and Bebo, or whoever it might be, on that issue?

Edward Vaizey: That was my error in omitting to mention that Facebook is on the board of UKCCIS, and we regularly engage with social media. However, I think that we can—and should—do more, and I will come to that in a minute.
	As I was saying, the UKCCIS board considers what companies can do to help to address cyber-bullying and to develop robust policies. It has been working with the industry and social media companies to look at the ease with which users can report abuse on their sites, and
	how those reports are dealt with. The Government have been clear that we expect social media companies to respond quickly and effectively where behaviour contravenes those policies. It is also important to emphasise—I do not know how well this will go down with certain elements in the Chamber—that that work is also happening at European Union level. I think it is worth convening a meeting in the new year with social media companies and interested Members. If any Member in the Chamber wishes to participate, I would be happy to facilitate it.

Iain McKenzie: Does the Minister believe that any legislation brought in by the Government must cover all those who participate in the bullying? That is not just the initial person who put up the bullying or slanderous message, but those who repeat it online and spread it around, as they are equally to blame.

Edward Vaizey: A fundamental principle of law is that what is illegal in the physical world is illegal in the online world. If someone participates in an assault or in bullying in the physical world, they should be equally susceptible to whatever law they would contravene were they to do that in the online world. Someone repeating a libel online is not exempt from being sued because they have simply repeated what somebody else has said. That is the case with bullying and cyber-bullying as well.
	I repeat my offer to facilitate a meeting in the new year. The industry must understand that we need to make things as easy as possible for users. There may be common ground here. I think we considered this issue when we were tackling inappropriate content online and protecting our kids, and it goes back to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann was saying about teaching parents in his constituency. Someone might be sitting in their headquarters thinking, “Well, we’ve got robust policies. We’ve got this, we’ve got that,” but it must be clear to all users and across different platforms that whatever social media someone participates in, they should expect certain key principles such as the ability to make a complaint or receive a rapid response. I will facilitate that meeting.
	I mentioned education, and the whole drive against cyber-bullying must be considered as part of a broader drive to tackle all forms of bullying. The Government have sent a clear message to schools that bullying in any form is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. For schools there is a mixture of education and legislation, as well as greater freedom and more accountability. For example, as part of the national curriculum, the Government will ensure that children are educated about the dangers of the internet. Although schools are required by law to have a behaviour and bullying policy, they have flexibility in how to implement that policy, while at the same time they are held to account by Ofsted.

Mark Durkan: During the passage of the Education Act 2011, Ministers emphasised that cyber-bullying was a motivation for changing disciplinary laws to allow members of staff, not just teachers, to search an individual student, even a member of the opposite sex, without anybody else present and to seize property. Do the Government have any evidence on the use of the changed powers in schools? Have any protocols been developed and have any issues arisen from their use?

Edward Vaizey: We are lucky enough to have sitting next to me one of the top Education Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). By the time he comes to sum up, he will have an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The change in the law was welcomed, but I cannot say, from my eyrie in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, what statistics the Department for Education has at its fingertips on its effectiveness. The Department is proud of reducing 481 pages of bullying advice down to 11 pages. Common sense tells us that bullying advice is now being read by schools. The hon. Gentleman alluded to search powers, but the 2011 Act also introduced the new simplified Ofsted inspection regime. Since January 2012, Ofsted has four core criteria only, one of which includes freedom from bullying. Schools can therefore be held to account for their policies.
	From September 2014, pupils in every key stage—all pupils from ages five to 16—will be taught about online safety as part of the new curriculum. We hope that that will empower young people to tackle cyber-bullying through responsible, respectful and secure use of technology, as well as ensure that pupils are taught age-appropriate ways of reporting any concerns they may have about what they see or encounter online. I was also going to mention—

Tim Loughton: rose—

Edward Vaizey: That I want to take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

Tim Loughton: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm that academies and free schools will not have to follow the curriculum guidelines? What will he be doing, with his colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that these important procedures will still be taught in all our schools?

Edward Vaizey: All schools will have to have a protection policy in place and they will be subject to Ofsted inspections. My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to say what a fantastic job he did as children’s Minister. One reason why I have such respect for his remarks is because he is one of those former Ministers who has maintained an interest in the policy in which he was so intimately involved, and he continues to make important interventions in our debates.
	The Education Act 2011 strengthened schools’ powers—a specific Government intervention in this area—so that teachers can now impose same-day detention, use reasonable force to protect children from harm and have the power to search for and delete images or files that they think are inappropriate. Schools do not exist in a vacuum. Sometimes the rhetoric is such that we almost pass on to schools the responsibility for sorting out all society’s ills. Schools have to work with parents, and parents have to be participants and allies in the work to combat cyber-bullying. Schools need to work with parents to make it clear that no one will tolerate any kind of bullying, and to ensure that parents are aware of the procedures to follow if they believe their child is being bullied. Schools should investigate and act on all reports.
	Making parents aware of what they can do to keep children safe online is also important. I am pleased that, as part of our work to protect children from inappropriate
	content online, the main internet service providers have come together and formed an alliance to carry out a large-scale internet safety awareness campaign for parents. I understand that that will have a budget of approximately £25 million per year for the next three years and will include signposting to further sources of help and advice. I have said to the ISPs on many occasions that while it might be helpful to them in a competitive environment to offer new and up-to-date tools to parents to keep their children safe online, they must also work together as one. They have the experience, they know their customers, they have the highly paid marketing directors and they have the relationships with the advertising agencies and so on to work together as one for the common good to put forward this message. I am pleased we have got this deal with them.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to hear the news about the campaign. Will the Minister clarify whether that will be £25 million per year for three years, or £25 million over three years?

Edward Vaizey: I am so sorry. I misspoke because of what was written in my speech. I now understand that it is £25 million over three years. I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me, and I will double and triple check that.
	A range of agencies and organisations have a role in preventing and responding to bullying: local authorities, local safeguarding children boards, law enforcement, schools, parents and the internet industry. Drawing on the breadth of expertise available, the Government are supporting a number of specific initiatives. For example, we are providing four organisations—I think this figure is correct—with more than £4 million in total over two years from spring 2013. [Interruption.] I am assured that that is correct. We are giving £800,000 to the Diana Award to identify and train 10,000 pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. We are giving £250,000 to Kidscape to work in nine of London’s most economically deprived boroughs to train primary school professionals to deliver preventive and remedial strategies. We are giving £1.5 million to BeatBullying to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds over two years as cyber-mentors, and we are giving £1.5 million to the National Children’s Bureau consortium to focus on bullied children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities, to work with 900 schools, parents, carers and school staff to reduce bullying and its impact when it occurs.
	I have spoken for some time in this short debate on a subject that is important and wide-ranging. I reiterate how welcome the debate is, and how judicious the opening remarks were from the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Building on the work of the UKCCIS—in its time, a relatively unique organisation, bringing together a range of stakeholders, and it remains the forum to debate many of the key issues—the Government have developed a range of measures, such as important legislation to give teachers powers to intervene in cyber-bullying and a campaign to work with ISPs to ensure that we can educate parents. I urge hon. Members to engage with social media on their procedures and thoughts. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and to my hon. Friend the Minister when he sums up.

William McCrea: Some time ago, I secured a debate on suicide prevention. I acknowledged then, and I do now, that the internet and social media are prominent features in youth culture nowadays. Young people see the use of technology as a vital part of their social life, and the online environment has created unique opportunities to learn, to connect and to communicate.
	Almost 99% of children aged between eight and 17 throughout the United Kingdom have access to the internet, while 90% of children aged five to 16 have computer access. As we accept that social media are a reality in everyday life, we must also accept the growing concern about the use of the internet for cyber-bullying. Although it may be impossible to remove online risk completely, we have a duty to challenge the present unacceptable situation that leaves vulnerable young people and adults open to abuse and self-harm
	We as legislators cannot sit on the sidelines until something happens that affects our homes and families, which is when we typically express horror and disbelief at the terrible consequences of a system that we allow to operate. I wish to express my appreciation to the House Library for a very informative debate pack, prepared for today’s debate.
	I know that many within our society must carry responsibility—we have heard some of them named already—for the protection of our children. I believe that we must first start in the home, because parental responsibility is so important. Parents cannot shun their responsibility to provide a safe environment for their own children. Quite often, they provide availability to the technology, and then some walk away from any further responsibility. By so doing, many parents inadvertently expose their children to cyber-bullying and inappropriate online behaviour because they do not exercise parental control. Many parents might set up a social network account without any understanding of the need for online safety. Many have little or no knowledge of how they should or could protect their children online. Parents, however, do not stand alone in carrying the burden of responsibility. Society must bear its portion of responsibility. We have heard about the responsibility of teachers, for example, and of this Parliament having responsibilities that we must all shoulder.
	The figures for online bullying are staggering. The Independentstated on 2 October 2013:
	“More than a million young people are subjected to extreme online bullying every day in Britain”.
	The explosion of social networking sites means that, according to the national anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label, seven out of 10 13 to 22-year-olds have been cyber-bullied. This growing problem now affects an estimated 5.43 million young people, with girls and boys equally likely to be targeted. Cyber-bullying is now an everyday problem for today’s children—one that I believe is of epidemic proportions. The suggestion that people should simply boycott websites that fail to tackle the problem is, in my opinion, far too simplistic. We as a society must not accept cyber-bullying as a norm—either for the present or future generations.
	Facebook is the most common place for cyber-bullying to occur, with studies informing us that young people are twice as likely to be bullied there than on any other
	social network.
	The Daily Telegraph
	revealed in an article of 18 October 2013 that Facebook has unveiled plans that will allow millions of teenagers to give strangers access to their online profiles. The article states:
	“The social media site is changing its rules so that accounts set up by youngsters aged 13 to 17 will no longer have an automatic privacy setting which prevents their status updates, photos and videos being publicly available. Until now teenage Facebook users’ profiles have only been visible to their ‘friends’ or ‘friends of friends.’”
	The truth often is that today’s friend may no longer be a friend; in actual fact, today’s friend, especially in social media, can become tomorrow’s enemy. In my opinion, these new regulations will leave hundreds of thousands of our very young people—children—exposed and vulnerable to predators and paedophiles.
	Many children have revealed their innermost thoughts to their friends online. In fact, they have revealed thoughts that they would never utter in a face-to-face encounter. They revealed those thoughts because they believed they had a restricted world of their friends on the internet. Now, much of this can be shared in the public domain, but it will not happen without serious consequences. Do these providers have no conscience and feel that they have no responsibility when a young person is haunted by what they perceived was a very private statement now being made public and leading in several cases to young people taking their own lives? John Carr, secretary of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition, accuses Facebook of arrogance, stating:
	“You get the impression that power breeds arrogance.”
	I believe that this is not a subject for glib comments; it is one of the most serious subjects that could ever be brought before this House. We must therefore help our young people. Liam Hackett, who founded the anti-bullying charity, Ditch the Label, rightly pointed out that, historically, bullying went on in the classroom—a point on which the Minister touched. Today’s bullying, however, does not stop there. Bullying in the classroom was repugnant and must be utterly condemned, but it stopped when the child arrived home. For many children today, though, there is no escape, because the bullying in the classroom follows them right to their own home and, in many cases, even to their own bedroom.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the bullying somehow goes beyond that. I do not know why, but people feel able to say things that are far worse through that sphere than they would say to someone’s face or in front of somebody else. It is a strange thing, but it is clear that people feel able to do that.

William McCrea: Of course, anonymity will allow that to happen. The reality is that, as I said, many young people will say things online that come out of their hearts at that moment, but they believe that this is for their friends. They would not have opened their heart to say such things if they believed they were going to be spread around. Equally, there are those who say things through this medium that they would never say to a person face to face. That highlights the seriousness of this situation.
	Surely no one can be immune to the tragedy that often follows. The social media are often the tool of today’s modern bullying at a time when a young person is most vulnerable to the feeling of worthlessness. As
	the bullying continues on the social media site, even in the young person’s own bedroom, a feeling of loneliness will follow. Then, following on from that loneliness comes a sense of hopelessness, and the social media might then kick on a step further. After it has carried that person to the point of hopelessness, worthlessness and loneliness, it then also provides them with information and techniques that increase the chance of suicide attempts being successful and decrease the chance of these young people receiving help. At that moment of their vulnerability, when they are at the lowest point of their life, they are shown how they could end it all and are told by the person communicating with them why they should end it all because they are worthless—because they are nothing, because they mean nothing to anybody.
	I suggest that every Member of this House here today would do well to spend a quiet time reading the notes the Library has provided for us. Many of us as Members of Parliament have heard in our constituency offices the stories of young people caught in the trap of cyber-bullying and who are too scared to say or do anything. Thousands of them are targeted by internet blackmailers—sadistic abusers who operate in online chatrooms that can access the dark recesses of our computers, ready to make their innocent victim a slave.
	Dr Elly Farmer, a clinical psychologist, said:
	“There is a desire for power and control, and getting a kick out of causing as much pain as possible.”
	How sick can a person be, but the sad reality is that there are sick people out there and our young people are vulnerable to them.
	Not one of us is immune to the viciousness and cruelty of these vipers. Given that there are abusive messages like those sent to the 14-year-old girl found dead after she received a series of messages telling her to drink bleach, go get cancer and die, surely there is technology that exposes the identity of the evil persons from whom the messages emanate.
	The internet providers have failed, and are continuing to fail, our young people. That is why I believe, as the motion suggests, that Government must act to provide legal protection, and when Government do so, the courts must show their responsibility and ensure those who are responsible for cyber-bullying face lengthy prison sentences.
	The subject we are dealing with today is a subject that can cost a person’s life. Therefore to do nothing, or do little or only do something, will not satisfy our conscience. That is why I suggest that, having read the document that has been provided for us and having listened to the speeches here today, it would do good for every one of us in the stillness and silence of our own hearts to ask this question: “What more can we do?” The Government must also ask that question: “What more can Government do to protect our children?”

Tim Loughton: It is a pleasure to follow that very balanced, stark and worrying speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), which was in the same vein as that of his colleague, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who opened the debate. This is a very important subject and I pay tribute to the DUP for having brought it to the House’s attention today. It is a very important and topical subject, and it merits greater coverage and
	attention than is suggested by the number of Members who are able to be here debating it today
	We have had a number of debates on related subjects recently, which is a sign of the seriousness with which this House takes this issue and the threat that this problem presents to many of our constituents day in, day out—the young, the old, the vulnerable and everyone else as well. There has in the past perhaps been a focus on access to harmful material on the internet—violent pornography and violence generally—and its hugely insidious effect on our young people and particularly on vulnerable and impressionable teenagers. Just a few days ago yet another case came up and was reported in the newspapers where a boy of 12 raped his younger sister after watching online pornography, prompting a judge to warn yesterday that
	“the internet is not a benign babysitter”.
	We have become almost conditioned and immune to horrific cases like that being a fact of everyday modern life, but that does not make it any less important that we should urgently tackle this problem. We must not take it for granted. We must do much more than we are doing now collectively as a country, as a Government, and with all the institutions at our disposal.
	I welcome the progress made recently in various parts of Government, in co-operation with businesses and other institutions, on the proliferation of filters, which we are now going to see on accessing pornography and harmful material. However, we have a lot more to do, and they are just one part of what needs to be a whole jigsaw of solutions addressing the effects the internet can have on impressionable people who can be influenced by it.
	The bigger question is not so much how people get access to the internet and how we restrict it, but why they want to look at these things and why they are influenced by them. Why does the internet have such a huge influence on impressionable boys in particular, and how has it come to normalise hardcore and often violent behaviour for our kids so they take this stuff granted—stuff that we are aghast at and would have been absolutely aghast at if we had had access to it in our impressionable teenage years? The internet is a fantastic tool that we cannot, and would not wish to, uninvent; it is one of the great fashioning things of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Why do some people turn to the internet to use it to bully, harass and abuse?
	As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, in my time as children’s Minister I jointly chaired the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, a really important body that is part of the solution. It has been providing answers and it needs to be at the heart of the solutions we provide. We must have a multi-faceted approach, which is why that body, which brings together academia, business, the internet service providers, the child protection people, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Government and everybody else, is so important. In my time on the UKCCIS we focused on access to harmful content—violent and adult content—for young people in particular, and I think the focus is still the same. I regret, however that we did not latch on earlier, as we needed to do, to the malign effects that the misuse of social media to abuse and bully is having on our children, some of them under the age of 10, every day of their lives.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and has hit the nail on the head. We can put all the barriers and protections in place, but in terms of bullying, children have access to Facebook and the other similar sites because that is part of modern life. It is how they meet and arrange parties, and if they are not part of that network, they fear they will be excluded, which presents us with a difficult circle to square.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right. Like it or not, my teenage daughters go absolutely berserk if their internet connection is down or they lose their mobile or other such device. You cannot leave home without it.
	It is ironic that, as we heard earlier, at a time when, technologically, communication has never been easier—we can telephone, text, e-mail, tweet, use Bebo—actually, we do not talk to each other much. Certainly, children do not talk to their parents much, and vice versa. When my wife or I sometimes get a request by e-mail from one of my teenage daughters for supper in her bedroom, I think that we have gone quite far enough. She will not be getting any supper that night, if that sort of nonsense goes on.
	Important though it is, rather than just concentrating on access to harmful material, we need to take much more seriously the use of social media for malign purposes by young people against other young people, and, of course, by older people masquerading as young people who are seeking to groom and abuse them sexually. It is extraordinary to note the number of young people who will still communicate with strangers—they know not where they come from or what their intentions are, yet they have conversations with them over the internet and even meet up with them, as if they were best friends.
	These sites will expand, and more social media opportunities will of course come the way of our children. Some are supposed to be age-barred, but in practice we know that it is almost impossible to do that. Having spoken to young people, including during my time as chairman of the UKCCIS, I know that what really worries them is a malign posting on social media sites, which undermines their integrity. Such a posting can go viral, and in a matter minutes a huge audience may be privy to some deeply offensive and abusive, personal, private sexual information that is now out there. In the past, such information would have been in hard copy form—a piece of paper available to just one or two people, so it had limited effect. Now, it is out there for ever, potentially.
	Some 38% of teenagers have received sexually explicit texts or e-mails, and according to one survey that figure is going up. Indeed, “sexting” is just one of the more alarming manifestations of social media having become part of our everyday lives. This can turn into bullying when threats to send increasingly explicit photos over social media are used as a form of blackmail. Of course, we have had the recent tragic cases of young people, including a 14-year-old girl, being driven to suicide by the fear of what is out there—by the threat of its being publicised and used against them on social media.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, because potential future employers are increasingly looking at young people’s Facebook history,
	their career prospects could be ruined and they could be denied such opportunities because of something that has been put on Facebook?

Tim Loughton: And of course, as Members of Parliament, we know all too well that, for members of the press—not too many are present in the Press Gallery today—such activities are often part of their job description.
	The internet affects everybody’s lives. It is un-cool, as we have heard, not to be on the internet or not to have the latest internet-enabled mobile device. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has shown that almost 40% of our young people are affected by cyber-bullying. A survey by Nominet, which has done a lot of work in this area, showed that 65% of young people have experienced online bullying, or “trolling”, or know somebody else who has. For ChildLine, which is part of the NSPCC, bullying is the second most important issue, accounting for more than 10% of the counselling sessions arising out of the referrals it receives.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked on many children’s issues together, and he will remember that the commission on stalking on which we worked found that this terrible use of the internet was destroying people’s lives. Is it not good news that we quickly got the law changed on stalking? People said that it could not be stopped, but we proved that it could be. Now, that same commission is being re-formed to look at cyber-bullying, I hope with the same success.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right. A recent debate in this place showed what can be done when we put our minds to it and listen to people who have solutions, rather than always listening to those who focus on the problems.
	The Department for Education’s own research shows that 30% of secondary school-aged children have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by abuse on mobile phones or the internet. Cyber-bullying is an even more cowardly form of what we might have known as playground bullying, because it often hides behind anonymity, done by people in the comfort of their own bedroom. However, the psychological effects can be every bit as damaging as physical, face-to-face bullying, and such bullying has the capacity to be spread cancer-like among a much wider body of peers, at the press of a button. It can undermine a young person’s confidence and self-esteem, at a time when they are still finding their own identity. It can lead to depression, truancy, self-harm and even suicide; to a fear of returning to school to face one’s friends, who may be the authors of some of this cyber-bullying; and to a feeling of being permanently unsafe.

Bob Stewart: Being bullied by electronic means could actually be worse than being bullied in the playground. At least in the playground, people perhaps have their friends around to sustain them. Being bullied privately, perhaps in a quiet place, could really prey on someone’s mind.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course in such situations there are no witnesses around. People suffer in silence, and there is not necessarily anybody on hand to report such behaviour to. That is
	why it is every bit as damaging as, and probably more damaging than, the playground bullying that he and I might have been witnesses to—certainly not part of—in our days of yore in the playground.
	Nominet’s “know the net” research suggests that socially and economically disadvantaged children and young people are at greater risk of experiencing cyber-bullying and suffering its adverse effects. It is more likely to affect disabled children, young carers, children with learning disabilities and recipients of free school meals. Cyber-bullies are picking on the most vulnerable children—an even more shameful act. Facebook is the most common place for it, as we have heard. Facebook has made great strides, but there is an awful lot more it can do. Such bullying happens on Twitter, and it happens with Instagram. There are now various new modes of communicating, whereby an image is sent and it self-destructs within 10 seconds, so the evidence is gone. Those are all clever ways that can be used by malign people to bully even more effectively.
	What is really worrying is that only 37% of teenagers who experience online bullying report it to a social network, so two thirds do not. Some 36% of those who do not report it said that they choose not to because it is not taken seriously and doing so would be a waste of time. Very few even report it to their parents, yet a third of all parents fear that their child is actually causing bullying on the internet, according to research by the National Children’s Bureau and McAfee. Some 45% of parents have set up Facebook accounts themselves for their own children who are under the age of 13. The recommended minimum age for having a Facebook account is 13, yet some parents are clearly ignoring that. Indeed, Facebook itself has discussed removing that age threshold. However, that is one of the few safeguards that provides guidance to parents on the age at which it is appropriate for their children to be exposed to these very powerful forms of social media. Only one in 10 parents believe that their own children are safe online, yet over a third have never had a conversation with their children about the dangers of the internet, and only one in five bothers to set up controls on their internet devices.
	This is an extraordinary situation, a perfect storm. Schools are not doing enough to teach the hazards of the internet effectively. We need better sex and relationship education as armour to deal with some of the sexual abuse on the internet. Parents are afraid of appearing ignorant and do not communicate with their children about the hazards, and the social media companies are still spending too much time on maximising the number of people attracted to their sites, the revenues earned by the sites and the stock market capitalisation as the sites are launched on the American stock market. The Home Affairs Select Committee reported earlier this year that too many of our social media companies remain far too complacent and laid back about the perils of the internet for young and impressionable people.
	The other big problem is that abuse of the internet lacks consequences. That was behind my earlier question to the Minister when I asked him how many people were being prosecuted and actually feeling the force of the law. How many people are being shown that what they are doing is not just a bit of harmless fun, a bit of ribbing or a bit of playfully taking the mick out of someone, but that it is dangerous abuse that can ultimately be fatal?

David Simpson: Recent figures on trolls who have stopped abusing people online have shown that many of them admitted looking for the most vulnerable targets and making their lives a misery. They admitted that that behaviour was like a drug, and that they would move on to another vulnerable target. Something more needs to be done about this.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right. It takes an extraordinary mentality to want to use the fantastic technology of the internet to abuse and, ultimately, to cause harm and even death. This is perhaps similar to those people who invent computer viruses and get a kick out of causing huge inconvenience and misery to large numbers of people.
	I have been a bit gloomy so far, but I want to end by mentioning a few of the good things. Good progress has been made. The work of the Prime Minister and the Government internationally with the FBI on promoting filters and using greater powers to remove harmful images from the internet is very welcome. The profile of the problem has certainly been raised, which is also welcome. We now have better guidance on e-safety in schools, although my complaint is that that focuses too much on the mechanics of the technology and not enough on the ethics of what is good and not good and what cannot be trusted on the internet.
	The Department for Education has awarded £4 million-worth of grants to BeatBullying, the Diana Award, Kidscape and the National Children’s Bureau, all of which are excellent organisations doing some really good practical stuff, but it is a drop in the ocean when we consider how many hundreds of millions of people are using social media. The Education Act 2011 gives teachers greater powers to search for and delete inappropriate images on electronic devices, which is welcome, as is the fact that Ofsted should now be inspecting behaviour as part of its assessment of schools and looking closely at the effectiveness of internal policies to prevent bullying and cyber-bullying. I also welcome the additional funding to enable the Internet Watch Foundation to use its new powers to take down inappropriate sites.
	There is more that we need to do, however. We need to empower parents and pupils. We need to ensure that schools not only educate the kids but invite the parents in so that they can learn what the kids have learnt, so that they know what to look out for when they go back home. This is just like healthy eating: schools are very good at giving kids healthier meals and telling them about healthy eating, only to let them go home and be stuffed full of pies by parents who do not have the right attitude. We also need more in-your-face guidance from the Government, through the Department for Education and the Home Office, about the real dangers of what is going on.

Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is always possible to recognise a school that has a big question mark hanging over it when its head teacher says, “My responsibility ends at the school gate”? It could never end there in relation to bullying, because the bullies used to hang out on the street outside. Bullying of that kind, and bullying on the internet, must be tackled by head teachers managing their schools properly.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right. Cyber-bullying might start in the playground, but it can continue in the bedroom of the anonymous person who is carrying out the campaign.
	Our social media companies need to do much more. We need far more effective in-your-face reporting mechanisms, proper hot buttons and faster, more effective mediation and adjudication on what is acceptable. Also, there must be consequences, so that the people who post this stuff can have it taken down and have their site confiscated. In some cases, we should not shy away from naming and shaming the perpetrators in school and preventing them from using social media.
	As the House has heard, I have my own long-standing troll who continues to post malicious material about my family. For many months, I have been complaining to Google, which hosts his blog. This person has posted pictures of my teenage, under-age daughters on his blog, alongside abusive comments. They have not been removed. When he was spoken to about it, he replaced their faces with horses’ heads, alongside equally abusive comments. After about six months, Google got round to doing something. It sent me this response:
	“Hello. Thanks for reaching out to us. We have reviewed your request. At this time, Google has decided not to take action. Blogger hosts third-party content. It is not a creator or mediator of that content. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.”
	That is not an effective way of dealing with clear and obvious abuse, and I am still on at Google—and it is not just Google—to take this sort of abuse seriously. If it is unable to do that for a Member of Parliament who has a platform here, imagine how many of our children must be suffering in silence because they have no means of drawing attention to this deeply abusive, offensive and completely unnecessary form of cyber-bulling.
	We also need better sentencing guidelines. There are some bits of legislation, but we have not yet seen people being hauled before the courts. Frankly, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions must do better in this regard. They complain that this is a grey area and that the thresholds are high, but cyber-bullying is cyber-violence and if that violence were committed in person in playgrounds or in pubs, it would be dealt with properly by the police and the courts. Cyber-bullying should be no different.
	I have recently written to all Members of Parliament, with the help of Nominet, asking for cases in which their constituents had been the victims of cyber-bullying so that we can put together some best practice to use when our constituents come to our surgeries when their children and family members have experienced this kind of bullying. We as Members of Parliament also experience cyber-bullying. I have spoken to Mr Speaker about this and he is sympathetic to our receiving guidance on how to help ourselves to guard against trolling and cyber-bullying, which we should not have to accept as we try to do our jobs.
	This is a problem that affects all of us: the young, the old and, in particular, the most vulnerable. It is just a technological advance—albeit a particularly insidious one—from playground bullying to cyber-bulling, but it can go as far as to involve threats of terrorism, as certain Members have found out to their cost. There is no magic bullet, but we all have a responsibility better to educate our children.
	Schools should have a designated teacher who is responsible for anti-bullying work, and we should have much more effective procedures and mechanisms for reporting incidents of bullying, including cyber-bullying, in schools. Cyber-bullying should be included and referred to in all policies on behaviour, anti-bullying and acceptable use. All teachers should be given training, support and guidance on dealing with bullying, including cyber-bullying. Those are just some of the recommendations in the BeatBullying “Virtual Violence” report. We need clear guidance along those lines from the Department for Education to schools on whether or not they are bound by the curriculum, and not the current postcode lottery and the laissez-faire approach that I fear we have. We need clear guidance from the Home Office to justice institutions.
	We also need greater social responsibility from our social media companies. They need to monitor, and we need to monitor, how good they are at reporting this stuff and taking it down, and how quickly they do it. They need to invest in moderators and to signpost better where young people can go to get help. Above all, there needs to be consequences for cyber-bullying and the Government need to take a greater lead. I have sympathy with what Democratic Unionist party Members were saying about making cyber-bullying an offence, because, as I said earlier and I say again, cyber-bullying is cyber-violence. We would criminalise it in any other context and we need now to look seriously at how the law can treat it equally seriously.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ought to remind the House that we have another debate to follow, and I have received indications that, as with this debate, a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. If Members who are about to speak restrict their remarks to approximately 10 minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have a chance to do so.

Margaret Ritchie: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful, reflective contribution of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and his party for tabling this motion on the very important topic of cyber-bullying. As the Minister said, there is no doubt that cyber-bullying is perpetrated with a large degree of anonymity and distance, which makes it particularly insidious and frightening for children. In many instances it has led to truancy from school, self-harm, suicide and many other issues. We all know that cyber-bullying can be done in many situations, and people who commit it say things on the internet, Twitter and Facebook that they would not say to someone face to face. When someone reads such a comment about themselves on the internet, Facebook or Twitter, it can be particularly intimidating. In fact, people have even been purged as a result, so it is important to reflect on that.
	Cyber-bullying and legislation throw up various definitional issues. Cyber-bullying is defined as:
	“when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person”.
	However, legislative difficulties arise in defining the difference between cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking, and in defining each of those concepts. That brings us into the arena of cyber-defamation law. Cyber-bullying has proved difficult to legislate on because of freedom of speech issues. Absurdly, many people argue that such legislation violates the bully’s freedom of speech. I find it unacceptable that a bully should feel that he is being prevented from saying something. However, this all comes back to the fact that such bullying is anonymous and from a distance, and that it can cause people to take certain actions, in a mistaken belief, to try to protect themselves. The hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that serious consideration has to be given to the legislative consequences or cyber-bullying, because at the moment, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, cyber-bullying has had little consequences. In Northern Ireland, a review of sentencing is taking place and reference must be made to cyber-bullying in that. We must also have the primary legislation here and in the devolved institutions to deal with this issue.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the law in Northern Ireland does not require schools even to mention cyber-bullying in their anti-bullying policies? The local Minister for Education needs to get on with it.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that more urgent, robust and assertive action needs to be taken to deal with this issue. I believe that there is not one family of a Member in this House who have not been bullied, either face to face or by cyber-bullying, which is much more insidious.
	The statistics are interesting. Ofcom found this year that some 43% of five to 15-year-olds have a social networking profile. Ofcom has also found that 81% of teenagers own a smartphone, with 60% of teenagers claiming that they are highly addicted to smartphone usage. This year, it also found that children and young people are now spending 17 hours a week online, although I would judge that the real figure is much higher. To see that, one has only to witness the use of this technology by children, be it on the school bus, in school or in a family or other environment.
	This debate is all about what we do to deal with the problem and what political action is required. Like my colleagues in the DUP, I believe that the British Government and the devolved institutions have to give serious consideration to legislative consequences and to legislation itself. Until the Government here and the devolved institutions take it seriously, people who are dedicated to this form of bullying will get away with it.
	I have no doubt that there needs to be lobbying for sustained nationwide campaigns similar to those for road safety, including TV advertisements, radio broadcasts and adverts, and video. An onus and obligation should be placed on the provision of funding and sponsorship from the big players such as the search engines, including Google, the social media platforms, such as Twitter, and mobile phone companies, such as O2, Orange and Vodafone. An action plan must be put in place to deliver awareness talks to parents, community and church leaders, educators, young people and children about this vice, which is a form of cyber-terrorism.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the work being done in the Republic of Ireland and how it is approaching legislation. The British and Irish Governments, along with the devolved institutions and the Governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, are part of the British-Irish Council. I urge the British-Irish Council to give immediate attention to this issue of cyber-bullying, because the Council would be a good context in which it could be discussed and in which Governments and devolved institutions could consider the matter and take positive legislative action.
	The other area I wish to discuss is that relating to Children’s Commissioners. We have one in Northern Ireland, one in the other devolved institutions and one here in Britain. An immediate conference should be held at which they could reflect on this subject, because they have a dedicated responsibility for children, in order to see what can be done. [Interruption.] I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. As of 20 November, Canada introduced legislation covering matters such as distribution, removal, forfeiting the device, reimbursement to victims, court orders and investigative powers. We should be examining that strong Canadian legislation to see where we could take action.
	In supporting this motion, I suggest that tackling these issues and the gaps in education and awareness are paramount, as is legislation. Cyber-bullying will continue to have a profound effect on our young people’s lives and on our future society. Parents feel largely helpless in this matter, and the debate today should be a warning to the Government that we all want to see action of a legislative kind to tackle this form of terrorism as it is so insidious in our wider communities today.

Simon Wright: Cyber-bullying strikes at victims at any time and in any place—at home, at school, on a bus or out with family or friends. It takes place on a range of different platforms, including text, social networks, video, photo messaging, internet chatrooms, in-game messages, e-mail and more. Nearly half of five to 15-year-olds own a mobile phone, and the use of tablet computers has trebled over the same age group since last year, and almost all have regular internet access at home or at school. The channels through which cyber-bullying is perpetuated are never far away from any child. The experience for the victim is made all the more chilling by the fact that the tormentor can act anonymously and in the mind of the abused can be anyone they know or do not know.
	A survey undertaken by Norfolk county council found that nearly a quarter of children in Norfolk primary and secondary schools had experienced cyber-bullying at school. Bullying through text messages was the most common, followed by the use of social media sites. The survey highlighted the wide range of young people’s online presences through which cyber-bullying takes place. Ofcom’s recent report into young people’s use of media emphasises the rapid changes in the use of different technologies by children over periods as short as just one year.
	Technology is continually evolving. Online platforms come and go, and young people have a healthy appetite for trying out new technologies and experiences. If
	guidance and support and legislation are to be effective, they must be relevant in an ever changing landscape and not be too focused on specific technologies or software. We must ensure that young people, parents, teachers and others have the skills and the understanding to protect themselves and others from dangers across a range of platforms.
	The dangers and the consequences of persistent cyber-bullying have become horribly clear. In a study published in 2010 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a team of Finnish researchers found that cyber-bullying puts strains on mental health that include problems processing emotions, disruptions in socially appropriate behaviour, and an impaired ability to interact successfully with others. Those findings are supported by professionals working with children who have been bullied in my constituency.
	Red Balloon is an excellent organisation providing a supportive learning environment for children who are outside mainstream schooling because they have been subjected to severe levels of bullying. Angela Francis, who is the co-ordinator of the Red Balloon Learner Centre in Norwich, has highlighted her concerns over the impact that ever increasing levels of anxiety relating to cyber-bullying can have on young people’s mental health. The consequences on a child’s well-being can be devastating.
	The Norfolk survey highlights that the majority of those who are bullied reported being bullied to a parent or carer, and roughly two fifths reported being bullied to a member of school staff. There are vast swathes of information on cyber-bullying available to parents, carers and teachers by charities, local authorities, social networks, and the 100 organisations that make up the anti-bullying alliance.
	Given that cyber-bullying can take place anywhere, children themselves need to be empowered and taught about the dangers from a young age. They need to be able to identify cyber-bullying, know what steps to take when they encounter it and encourage other children to stand against it. Facebook has an anti cyber-bullying toolkit for those aged 13 to 18. It would be even more helpful if all social media sites and chatrooms encouraged young people to take a tutorial on their own anti-bullying policies at the time of setting up an account.
	I welcome the new computing curriculum that will see schools putting an increased prominence on the teaching of e-safety from next September. It means that children in key stages 1 and 2 will be taught about using technology safely, including issues such as sexting and cyber-bullying, and I hope that teachers will feel in a strong position to support their pupils as a result. Many schools are already doing great work in this area, encouraged by initiatives such as the PICTFOR Make IT Happy competition. Valley primary school in my constituency entered this year’s competition. Year 6 children created a series of infographics about staying safe online and created a video of their work. Their brilliant entry, which was praised by judges, demonstrated how children can be empowered to deal with unwanted messages and to keep themselves safe from all forms of cyber-abuse.
	The best way to deal with any form of bullying is to stop it before it starts. Bullying Stinkz, which is a new anti-bullying campaign set up by my constituents Jacqueline Hitchcock-Wyatt and her daughter Ellie, aims to do just that. They have received celebrity backing, and
	recently recorded a pop song to highlight the campaign with children of Parkside school in Norwich. Their approach is to reinforce positive messages of diversity, starting at a very young age, and to empower children to speak up before patterns of bullying behaviour become established.
	I welcome today’s debate. We need to focus on the comprehensive issues of e-safety for all young people. Good work is being done, and needs to be continually developed, encouraged, prioritised and supported by the Government to ensure that everyone is adequately equipped to deal with the appalling behaviour of cyber-bullying. As this debate has highlighted today, we can and should do more.

Jim Shannon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Cyber-technology should not be a threat to people; it should be a bonus and one of the good things in life. On cyber Monday, sales worth some £600 million were achieved. Of course, for those with Ulster bank accounts whose cards did not work last night when they went to pay their bill in the restaurant, the petrol station or the shop, the card was not worth the plastic it was made of—but that is a different issue. None the less it highlights the advances that cyber-technology has brought—the good things—and the menaces.
	I want to focus on cyber-bullying among children and young people and the impact it can have on their well-being. Although I recognise that cyber-bullying is a problem among adults as well, internet use is increasing all the time among children and young people. It seems that each day the internet is becoming more mobile and more accessible.
	Earlier this year, a report by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that 91% of all five to 15-year-olds and 100% of 12 to 15-year-olds used the internet in 2012, which gives us some indication of the importance of it. The internet is one of the most profound inventions in human history, and, of course, it brings huge benefits for children and young people in that they are better informed and better connected to the world around them. That is what it is supposed to be about. But the internet can also be a tool for harm and abuse. As Members from all parts of the House will know—they have spoken about this matter very passionately and knowledgably—children and young people can often suffer as a result of cyber-bullying, which has significant detrimental effects on them, damaging their sense of worth and wrecking their self-esteem. As an MP from Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned that cyber-bullying is a significant and growing problem in our schools, as my hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) indicated in their contributions. According to research conducted by the Northern Ireland Department of Education in 2011, 15.5% of year 6 pupils and 17% of year 9 pupils indicated that they had experienced cyber-bullying in the past couple of months. That gives us an idea of the size of the problem.
	In January this year, the Nominet Trust published research on the level of cyber-bullying in the UK. Its report “Virtual Violence Two: progress and the challenges in tackling cyberbullying” makes a number of important findings. The report says that
	“28 per cent of 11-16 year olds have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by an individual or group through the use of mobile phones or the internet. For over a quarter of these, this experience was ongoing, meaning that the individual was continuously targeted by the same person or group over a sustained period of time. This suggest that one-in-13 secondary-aged school children have experienced persistent and intentional cyberbullying.”
	Given that there are 4.4 million secondary-aged children in the UK, those figures can be projected to suggest that 350,222 children have suffered persistent and insidious bullying inflicted via technology. That shows the numerical vastness of the issue, if hon. Members want to put it into figures. The report goes on to note:
	“Purposeful recurring attacks can easily overwhelm a young person being cyberbullied, leaving them feeling anxious, tormented and increasingly marginalised.”
	In some cases, cyber-bullying has been found to contribute to children and young people self-harming or even taking their own lives. Other Members have spoken about that. Many of my hon. Friends will have heard of the tragic case of Hannah Smith, a 14-year-old Leicestershire girl, who killed herself after being bullied on a social networking site. Hannah’s case is not an isolated one. Peter Wanless, chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said:
	“This is a tragic case where Hannah felt like she had no other option but to end her life. The cruel nature of cyberbullying allows perpetrators to remain anonymous and hide behind their screens.”
	He then called for greater measures to be taken against cyber-bullying. He said:
	“This is something that must be tackled before it gets out of hand. We must ensure young people have the confidence to speak out against this abuse, so that they don’t feel isolated and without anywhere to turn.”
	It is plain and clear that we urgently need to address those issues. One of the key ways we can do that is by seeking to inform and assist parents and guardians whose children might be exposed to such abuse online.

Gregory Campbell: A couple of years ago, I was threatened online and a severe threat was made to my life. One of the reasons I went to the police was not so much to get the abuse stopped for me personally, but to ensure that others, particularly vulnerable people and young people, could see that there is a remedy. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people report the issue and go to the right authorities action can be taken and the perpetrators can be caught and punished?

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable practical example of what happened to him and for saying how he responded in his fearless way. It shows that if he can do it, everyone else can do it, and that is leadership as it should be.
	Children and young people are now able to access the internet almost anywhere in a range of different ways through iPads, mobile phones and other portable devices. It is difficult for parents to monitor their children’s use of the internet, even if they wish to do so, beyond the lowest estimations. It is difficult even for those who are learned in this technology, who still cannot be entirely sure of what their children are doing.

Bob Stewart: As a parent of four teenage children, I have learned a heck of a lot today and I thank right hon. and hon. Members on the DUP Benches for
	introducing the debate. I have learned that I do not know enough about cyber-bullying and that as a parent I have to get with it, understand it and discuss it with my teenagers. I suspect that the House will agree with me on that and will forgive me for intervening to share with it something that I have learned.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his admission. We have all admitted that we can learn something every day, and so we can.
	A recent Ofcom report shows that 68% of 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK have a profile on a social networking site. Among nine to 12-year-olds, who are too young officially to have their own Facebook account, 36% report having a Facebook profile, with 13% saying that they use it regularly. How aware are parents of their children’s access to social networking sites and what goes on through those sites? That is the question we are all asking.
	The internet is changing fast and parents are clearly concerned about the rapid proliferation of harmful online content and what their children might be viewing. Ofcom highlights the fact that 79% of parents of children aged five to 15 who use the internet at home say that they have put in place rules about internet use. They have done it, but is it working? According to a report driven by Dr Sonia Livingstone at the London School of Economics, 81% of parents feel the need to talk to their children about what they do and view online and more than half stay nearby when their child is on the internet. If only that was possible in every case.
	Those last two statistics are encouraging, demonstrating a real desire on the part of many parents to be actively involved in their children’s online experience. In that context we need to empower them to help their children to address issues such as cyber-bullying. This will inform those parents who are interested and concerned and also, we hope, prompt those who are not taking an active interest in the safety of their children online to do so. In that regard, I draw the attention of the House to the excellent Online Safety Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the other place on Friday. The Bill has two key provisions, one of which is designed to engage with the challenge of cyber-bullying.
	In the first instance, the Bill places a statutory duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to exclude all adult content, while providing the user with the option of accessing such material subject to robust age verification to demonstrate that they are 18 or over. The provision is designed to help parents protect their children from stumbling, either accidentally or on purpose, on inappropriate material.
	In the second instance, the Bill places a duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to provide prominent, easily accessible and clear information about online safety to subscribers. It also places a duty on the Secretary of State to educate parents of children under 18 on online safety. That key educational provision has been made primarily to engage with online challenges such as cyber-bullying and sexting.
	The Bill is a noble proposal. It could and should move a long way towards achieving what we are trying to do today. I hope that the Government will embrace it
	and, in so doing, help to protect children from stumbling on inappropriate material and—of greater importance to this debate—to protect them from cyber-bullying.

Stuart Andrew: It is rather intimidating to follow all the wonderful contributions that we have heard. I thank the DUP for choosing this topic. Last time I contributed to an Opposition day debate for which they had chosen the topic, it was on suicide prevention. I am glad that the DUP has chosen yet another important and challenging issue.
	During that debate, I talked about my personal experience and a friend of mine who committed suicide when I was at school. The impact of that on my life has never left me. That poor young lad was bullied, but none of us knew about it. He hid it successfully and sadly, the outcome was catastrophic as he took his life. I also mentioned cyber-bullying. In my day, people could go home and get away from it. That is not the case today; there is simply no let up. In the family home, the PC might be sat in the corner of the living room, representing the constant menace of what is going on at school or in the workplace. It might be in the sitting room or the bedroom, a constant reminder of the bully out there in the wider world. As I said at the time, it is almost like having a silent bully in one’s own home.
	It gets worse, because, as other hon. Members have said, we now all enjoy having technology we can carry around with us. For victims of bullying, there is no escape whatsoever. Other hon. Members gave examples of that and we just heard about Hannah Smith and her terrible experience. Over the past couple of days I have looked at other such experiences. Shannon Gallagher took her own life less than two months after her 13-year-old sister had killed herself. At the time, there were allegations of cyber-bullying. Apparently, the teenager had referred the bullying to the networking website and hours before her death posted online comments about teenagers who were taunting her. It is a terrible problem that we must address.
	I am also very concerned about the suicide websites that now exist. It really is a terrible phenomenon. Just this week we saw the example of a 20-year-old man in Canada who tried to commit suicide online. He set his bedroom on fire, having taken drugs and alcohol. Some of the people who were watching—I do not understand that phenomenon—complained that they could not see what was happening because of the smoke that was filling the room. That is a dreadful example of the way in which cyber-bullying can create terrible problems for many young people.
	Stonewall has done work on the impact of bullying on young gay people. Research for it by the university of Cambridge in “The School Report” of 2012, a survey of more than 1,600 lesbian, gay and bisexual young people in Britain’s schools, found that 55% had experienced homophobic bullying in school, 23% had experienced homophobic cyber-bullying, and 10% were bullied by text message. Some of the quotes that appeared on the website were worrying. Sixteen-year-old Harry said:
	“Last summer, I was attacked on Facebook through a series of comments and wall posts calling me a ‘fag’.”
	Someone else said:
	“Sometimes I’d get messages on Facebook from people I didn’t know threatening me and telling me not to come back into school.”
	That sort of language is outrageous and we need to deal with it. Yesterday, we all saw the Olympic diver come out publicly, and I looked at the comments that were posted on his Twitter page. I shall not repeat some of the language, because it is pretty horrific. One person said that he was no longer a fan of Tom Daley because of the “choice”, as that person called it, that he had made. Someone else said:
	“I am now ashamed of my country…we can’t have a…fag representing us”.
	I wonder how many of those people would dare to say those things to the individual’s face. I do not believe that many of them would.
	What action can we take? Stonewall has discussed the work that schools could do, and there are a number of steps that they can take to prevent cyber-bullying and to support young people, whether gay or straight, particularly those who might suffer from mental health problems as a result of such bullying. It is important to promote clear policies on tackling bullying of all sorts, and to specify the need to tackle homophobic bullying in the classroom and beyond. Those policies should make clear both what cyber-bullying is and that cyber-bullying of school pupils is against school rules, regardless of where it takes place. That would go a long way towards sorting this out.
	We must prosecute abusers. The Communications Act 2003 clearly says that it is illegal to send messages that are grossly offensive, indecent or menacing in character. I welcome the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service brought more than 2,000 prosecutions in 2012, but I want to know the true extent of the problem, because many people do not come forward and report their experiences.
	The examples that I have given show the extremes of what might happen to someone who is subjected to cyber-bullying, and being constantly harangued in one’s own home via the computer or via one’s own phone has led some people to take their life, which is awful. The impact can be equally bad for young people’s mental health, and it can result in their confidence being attacked. In some cases, it can mean complete social exclusion, which needs to be addressed.
	We need a change in social attitudes. As technology has changed and improved significantly so, I fear, has our tendency to accept the bad aspects that come with it. Too often we accept that harassment or intimidating comments are part of being on Twitter or Facebook, and too often we hear people stating, “Well, it’s what happens.” Why should we accept that? I am not talking about free speech or robust debate—we all accept that, and we all get those messages—as there is a difference between robust debate and intimidating language that makes people fearful. If we do not deal with this, we will dissuade victims from coming forward, stripping them of the confidence that there is help available to deal with it.
	I want to refer to—how can I put it?—the local difficulty that I had in Strangers bar a few months ago. After that incident I received all sorts of e-mails, some positive and some rather negative, including one that was incredibly threatening. Someone said that they thought I had not been attacked enough, and they looked forward to the day the IRA re-formed and bombed my party. That sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. The people who work in my office should not be subjected to such comments. They were frightened
	when opening the post, because that message had set such an awful example. As a responsible employer, I felt that it was right for me to report it to the police, but I was quite surprised by the criticism I received from some members of the public who basically said, “You have to grow up, because that is just what happens on Twitter and Facebook.”
	The point I am trying to make is that if we as individuals do not stand up to such comments, how can we expect people who are being victimised in their schools and workplaces to do so? We need to change attitudes so that we can then change the culture. We need to say that it is frankly not on for people to be subjected to that, for the sake of those victims who have made the ultimate sacrifice and taken their lives as a result of bullying. Let us use the laws we have so that we enjoy the benefits and opportunities that technology can provide.

Helen Goodman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who made a heartfelt speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on initiating this important and timely debate. We need to pay more attention to this problem, so I am grateful to him.
	Members have spoken about the exaggerated behaviour seen on the internet, and we need to pay more attention to that. Bullying on the net and on social media is clearly not like bullying in the playground, and for a number of reasons. The Minister might want to do some research into the factors that change people’s behaviour and into how their behaviour changes.
	Anonymity is clearly a big problem in this regard. When talking about crime on the net more generally, we have considered whether it might be possible—I believe that it is—to make a clearer connection between a person’s identity on the net and their identity in the real world. Tackling that problem is central to tackling many of the problems we have on the net. The behaviour of young people, in particular, on the net can become exaggerated partly because there is no feedback, so they do not need to face the person they are bullying or to see the consequences. That is clearly part of the problem.
	I do not wish to suggest that there is a problem with young people only, because I think that people’s behaviour in general shifts with technology. If I was to say quietly to the Minister in a private place that I was going to tell him something that I did not want him to repeat, I am sure that he would respect that. If I was to write him a personal letter, it might be put in a box in his office and would not be published all over the media. However, if I was to send something by e-mail, it could immediately be broadcast nationally and internationally. We had such an incident in my constituency, when someone took a memory stick containing mental health records out of an office and managed to lose it. That is because people’s attitudes to other people are distanced by the technology, and we need to understand that more. We need to look at the work that has been done by Professor Susan Greenfield on changes that take place in the brain when people use technology, because there is clearly a profound change.
	We are looking for a strategy that cuts across different Departments and arenas. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of schools, which clearly is important. I would like the Minister to clarify whether the learning that the Government are putting into the curriculum will be in the IT part or in the personal, social, health and economic education part. The Opposition think that it really needs to part of PSHE, because this is about responsibility and relationships.
	I commend to the Minister work that I saw a couple of months ago in Denmark, where people have made curriculum materials to be used by parents and children, who are already doing so in after-school classes. Virtually every Member has said how important it is to involve families in this, because parents need support and help. Again, we can learn from the experience of other countries.
	Another aspect that has emerged is the disappointment that people have experienced when they have complained to the industry or to public sector professionals and the police. Another strand of any intelligence strategy must surely involve proper training for the professionals—the police, the courts and the social workers, as well as school teachers.
	The Minister said that 900 schools will be reached through the charitable work that is being supported. I very much hope that this is not going to be, as it sounded, slightly London-centric. Although 900 schools sounds like quite a lot, there are 23,000 schools in this country. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we do not want a postcode lottery.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke about the responsibilities of parents and pointed out that many parents are irresponsible. Unfortunately, adults—parents—are using the net to abuse their own children. This just shows the depths that people can plumb and the complexity of dealing with these problems.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about the inadequate response—that is the politest thing one could say about it—that he received from Google after he had contacted it. Indeed, when Google directed me to what it thought was its excellent advice about young people meeting in the real world people they had met online, I was quite surprised to see that it was a cartoon advising them that if they did so, it should be in a public place. As a piece of advice to young people, that is worse than pitiful. It is very important to get the industry up to speed on all this, as the Minister said, and to take an international, as well as a national, approach.
	Hon. Members have noted that the majority of young people now accept cyber-bullying as part of everyday life, as do their parents. According to the Anti-Bullying Alliance, 40% of parents and 44% of teachers said in a survey that they do not know how to deal with cyber-bullying. I hope that the Government are going to tell us that they do know how to deal with it and that they will engage more energetically with our European colleagues.
	In August 2013, Hannah Smith killed herself following a series of abusive messages on the social media site, Ask.fm, which is hosted in Latvia and has been linked to four suicides in this country and Ireland since 2010. When this happened in Ireland, the Irish Government
	got in touch with Ask.fm. Unfortunately, the Government in London did not do so. I went to a meeting with the Latvian ambassador. Given international hosting and the international movement of messages, it is vital that the Government up their game in tackling this with our European colleagues.
	As hon. Members have pointed out, the internet has great potential for learning and exploration, but if it is to be safe, it cannot be lawless. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children believes that one in five children is bullied online. Everybody has a responsibility to put an end to this, so I still do not understand why the Prime Minister’s summer announcements about child online safety contained nothing about safeguarding children on social media, or why the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not include it in her action list following her conference with the industry. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for offering to arrange a meeting with the industry and I want to take him up on it, because I think we can do more.
	I would be grateful if Ministers could look into a couple of legal points. First, is the existing legal framework adequate? Are the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Telecommunications Act 1984 specific enough to deal properly with cyber-bullying? It is clear that the activity is growing, so if there is a loophole, it needs to be filled. A systematic look at the legal provisions is essential.
	Secondly, it would be helpful to look at what obligations social media have to respond quickly and substantively to complaints about cyber-bullying. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a lot of intelligent points about this. He said that there need to be consequences for the individual. I think we also need to consider consequences for the industry if it has not set up proper systems on its websites so that people can press panic buttons and the perpetrators can be found and dealt with. It is clear, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that the industry is completely happy to devote a lot of time, energy and money to gaining customers and increasing its profits, but the tempo is much slower when it comes to protecting vulnerable young people. That is simply not acceptable.
	For example, Facebook has an age limit of 13, but it wishes to expose those young people to everything that is available to adults on the internet. That is completely irresponsible. The age limit of 13 was set up because it fits with Californian law. It does not fit with English law. This country has no system for telling whether somebody is 12, 13 or 14. Either Facebook must change its model and treat 13-year-olds as minors, or it must raise the age level at which people can access it. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot encourage children and young people into its site and then treat it as an adult space.
	I believe that Ministers can do many things in schools, with families and by looking at the legal framework.

Nigel Dodds: May I begin by thanking everyone, from all parties, who has taken part in this debate? In moving the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) set the right tone and set the debate on the right course
	by making the point that this is not a party political issue and that there is a large degree of consensus on both sides of the House. He highlighted the very good work he has initiated in his own constituency in setting up a forum to help parents in particular. That was a very good practical example of what we can do.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that he had learned something as a result of this debate. We have learned how serious the issue is, but we have also picked up some points on how we can tackle it that are worth taking back to our constituencies to share with our partners in schools and elsewhere.
	I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for his offer of a meeting between Members and the industry. We are certainly interested in following up on that excellent idea.
	The Under-Secretary made the important point that all forms of bullying are unacceptable, which is the case, but in recent years, we have seen the rise of its most insidious form—cyber-bullying. Everybody is clearly running to catch up with the technology and all its effects, with the exponential growth in the use of various platforms and so on. The learning curve is steep for us all, but the more we can work together and collaborate on the issues, the better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) pointed strongly to the responsibilities of parents in the home and of schools, as well as, like many hon. Members, to the responsibilities of those who run social media sites, many of which have failed to respond adequately.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said that much of the talk has been about harmful websites and much of the spotlight on pornographic ones, but added that more needs to be done to tackle social media sites and the problems of abuse and bullying. Like the shadow Minister, I think that the response that he received from Google to his complaint about an horrific set of circumstances was inadequate. Such a response is entirely illustrative of the problems that we are up against if we leave the matter wholly to the industry. That is why the motion refers, as several hon. Members have done, to the need to look carefully at what more can be done through legislation to force companies to respond adequately. There should be consequences for the companies if they do not take adequate action to deal with complaints and problems that are not only minor, but can be very serious, including those that have led, as we have heard, to a loss of life.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about legislation and the need for consequences. Like other Northern Ireland Members, she knows about this phenomenon—it is common across the entire country and, indeed, the modern developed world—as well as the particular issues in Northern Ireland arising from the legacy of the 30 or 35 years of the so-called troubles, with a large number of households and families affected by mental health issues. The insidious problem of cyber-bullying comes on top of those kinds of issues, which make the problems in Northern Ireland particularly acute. I join her in what she said.
	I also agree with the hon. Lady about the idea of having a strong campaign, including advertising, to up the profile of all this and to encourage parents to get to know more about what their youngsters and young people are up to, and educate them about what steps they can take to help.
	I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) for his contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches. He made a very interesting point, which I had not thought of, about making a tutorial available when people sign up to a new Facebook account, for instance, to teach them how to report and deal with abuse. That is an excellent idea that is worth bringing up in our discussions with the industry. I entirely agree with him that we can and should do more.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, as many hon. Members have done, the benefits of the internet, which is a wonderful invention that has brought and continues to bring massive good to so many, particularly in the developing world. The fact that, as he said, the internet can be a tool for harm is the real worry that parents and others now have. In recent days, we have heard all about the dark net, and about how people can access all kinds of services and goods. Quite frankly, it is beyond belief that people can actually do that.
	I thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for his speech in this debate—as he said, he also took part in one of our previous ones—and for making an important point. He cited a number of horrific cases, the most recent of which was the bullying that has resulted from the coverage about Tom Daley. The incidents involving the hon. Gentleman and his friend illustrate why we need to bring this matter into the open and discuss it more. That is why we brought it forward for debate. The more that we air these issues, highlight them and discuss them, the more people will realise that something needs to be done. We all need to take responsibility, parents in particular.
	Time is short, but I want to make a couple of further points, for which I am indebted to Dr Noel Purdy who, along with Dr Conor McGuckin, produced a report in Northern Ireland entitled “Cyber-bullying and the law”. Dr Purdy is the chair of the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum. He has made a number of points, particularly in relation to schools, that bear highlighting in the House this afternoon. He says that
	“schools are often at a loss to know where to start dealing with the issue”
	because
	“incidents take place in the evenings or at weekends off site”
	and because of issues with “staff competence”. He makes the point that in Northern Ireland the guidance that schools receive on how to manage these issues and on their legal responsibilities is “virtually non-existent”. He also makes the point that technology is changing so fast that it is hard for schools, teachers and parents to keep up.
	Dr Purdy states that cyber-bullying is a 24/7 activity. That point has been brought out in this debate. With the old kind of bullying in the school playground, one could get away from it and find refuge in one’s family, home and friends. People had support mechanisms. Bullying over the internet is inescapable because everybody now carries a mobile phone.
	Dr Purdy’s report cites primary school teachers who say that parents give iPads, tablets and mobile phones to children as young as four or five as Christmas and birthday presents and then leave them to it. As we all know, children pick up things from other children and from older children in particular. We therefore need to be conscious of this extremely worrying phenomenon. Parents urgently need to be educated about the dangers of internet technology. Buying such technology for their children and leaving them to it is the highest form of irresponsibility. However, it is too easily done. I am not lecturing others, because we are all guilty to some extent of not keeping a close enough watch on our children. In today’s society, it is not always possible to have a close family unit in which close attention is given to what young people are up to. That is a massive issue that needs to be addressed.
	We want the Government to consider legislation on greater reporting obligations on social media companies and service providers, and on a specific offence of cyber-bullying. In his opening remarks, the Minister helpfully referred to the various pieces of legislation that are in place. He referred to the number of cases that have been brought under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. He also mentioned the Communications Act 2003, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. However, I think that what has come out of this debate is that there needs to be a stronger definition of the phenomenon of cyber-bullying. I urge the Government to think seriously about that.

Edward Timpson: I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s valuable and welcome debate. It is perhaps a sign of the real advances that have been made in Northern Ireland that Democratic Unionist party Members have tabled two important debates on matters that affect the whole UK as well as their own constituents. That is to be hugely welcomed.
	I have listened with great interest to the contributions to the debate, none more so than that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I commend him, as have others, for his work in his constituency to raise awareness of cyber-bullying, such as the forum that he brought together, at which he committed to raising the profile of the issue. I suspect that he could have done no better than bringing today’s debate to the House. He set a measured and serious tone and raised a number of important points, which I will seek to cover.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) told us about the lack of parental knowledge that is still out there, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke for many of us when he admitted his own naivety about much of the activity on the internet that exposes young people to potential harm. We should all take that lesson from today’s debate.
	Concerns have also been raised in the debate about Facebook’s privacy settings. Following our work on the UKCCIS board, Facebook has made changes to the default setting for users aged 13 to 18, moving the default position from information being open to friends of friends to its being open to friends only. The Child
	Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and others have welcomed that, but we still need to hold Facebook’s feet to the fire, and the fact that it is a member of the UKCCIS board gives us a real opportunity to keep pressing it further to take more action.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly asked what more we could do, and we must constantly ask ourselves that question. The offer that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), made of a meeting with interested Members and social media providers—Twitter, Facebook and the like—was a positive step, and I hope that many hon. Members will take it up as a way forward.
	As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a thought-provoking and well informed speech, and he reminded us of the danger that cyber-bullying brings and the fact that in many ways it is no more than a cowardly form of playground bullying. There is also a danger that it is becoming an everyday fact of modern life, and that too many young people and adults are becoming sanitised to the world in which they communicate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) also raised that point in his excellent contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also asked the crucial question why so many people turn to the internet to bully, harass and abuse. I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and her thoughtful analysis of attitudinal changes in people’s behaviour that are connected with their use of different forms of social media, and how they have manifested themselves in such widespread form. It was a powerful point, and we should examine that matter carefully using the research that she pointed to and through the work of the UKCCIS board and across Government more widely. I am happy to discuss that research with her and where she thinks we could channel our energies to use it more effectively, because none of us would in any way, shape or form endorse the changes to social attitudes that we have seen.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the UKCCIS is part of the solution. He called for greater focus on social media as part of the board’s work, and I agree completely. The board currently has a strand of work on social networking, and we will pursue the matter more vigorously as the board moves forward. I commend him for his efforts to pool best practice through the Nominet survey of hon. Members, in which I encourage them to participate if they feel able to do so.
	My hon. Friend raised the important matter of vulnerable children in particular being unfairly targeted by people seeking to abuse them via the internet. The £1.5 million that we have given to the National Children’s Bureau will directly help to reduce the bullying encountered by children who have special educational needs or disabilities. As he rightly pointed out, we also need to improve reporting mechanisms so that the two-thirds of children who do not report a worry or concern about an interaction they have experienced over the internet feel able to do so. That is another piece of work the UKCCIS is taking forward, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for many of our other actions.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned the difficulties in defining cyber-bullying, and the need to raise awareness of the issue through a sustained nationwide campaign. To clarify an earlier
	exchange about the big four internet service providers coming together in a concerted joined-up campaign over the next three years, the £25 million is for the first year, with subsequent funding for the next two years to follow. That is a significant amount of money to target collectively on the issues that really matter, and cyber-bullying must clearly be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) gave a powerful demonstration of what can be achieved in people’s own communities to tackle this issue, and mentioned his constituent Jacqueline Hitchcock-Wyatt who set up the Bullying Stinkz campaign to empower young people to speak up. I commend them for their work. It demonstrates that if we have the will and desire to do so, we can effect change right where it matters.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the scale of this insidious form of bullying and the need to improve awareness among parents. We should never underestimate the ability of this issue to spread so quickly and so far, and that is a difficult part of finding a solution to these rapid technological changes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey shared candidly his own personal experiences and the loss of his friend to bullying. He may like to consider the categories included in new family-friendly parental control filters, which include suicide and self-harm, as that is important. We talk a lot about the insidious nature of much of the activity on the internet, but nothing can be more insidious than some of the suicide sites that we see. He reminded us of the terrible experience of Hannah Smith, and I had the opportunity to meet her father David a few months ago to discuss what we can learn from that tragic case.
	My hon. Friend also explained to the House about the targeting of gay people, and gave the recent example of Olympic diver Tom Daley, and some of the despicable and twisted posts that have been put on social media sites. Cyber-bullying attacks people’s confidence, and it can go even further and ruin people’s mental health. That goes to the heart of the conversation about social attitudes, and why it is that when people are given anonymity, their whole value base seems to flip. We must do more to understand that.
	I have already alluded to the helpful and constructive contribution by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and she asked about the four key stages in which internet safety will now be taught—previously it was taught only in key stages 3 and 4. Internet safety is in the computing part of the curriculum, but there is of course freedom for schools, within personal, social, health and economic education, to envelop it into other aspects of the curriculum. The hon. Lady mentioned some of the materials from Denmark that help not just children but parents as well—an interesting area to explore, considering we know how much parents feel that they lack knowledge and understanding of many of the issues their children face.
	On how we are helping schools, and some of the excellent voluntary organisations that work day in, day out, to support children who are victims of bullying, the 900 schools were in relation to the National Children’s
	Bureau grant for children with special educational needs. The £1.5 million to beat bullying is to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds to be mentors in schools and outside the school gates, and the £800,000 for the Diana Award is to train 10,000 pupils to act as anti-bullying ambassadors. It is not London-centric; we are trying to cover many areas of the country where we know there is expertise on the ground.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who closed the debate on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, reminded us that bullying in all its forms is simply unacceptable, but that we are still running to catch up with technology. It is in that vein that I will reflect on the contributions that have been made to consider whether there is more we can do to combat this horrific activity that is blighting far too many people’s lives, both young and old.
	If we are to be successful in tackling bullying, including cyber-bullying, it is important that we engage with people across society—including government, local authorities, local safeguarding children’s boards, the police, schools, parents and internet providers—so that they can all play their part. They all have a role to play, and by intervening to prevent and respond to bullying, we are more likely to stamp it out.
	We talked at length about existing legislation and the prosecutions arising from the Communications Act 2003. I will endeavour to write to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham with specific figures. Like so many other areas where vulnerable people are exposed to horrific crimes, whether female genital mutilation or other crimes, we want to ensure that we do all we can to bring about successful prosecutions. There will be instances where cyber-bullying forms part of a wider pattern of behaviour. Someone may be prosecuted under a different offence, where cyber-bullying forms part of the charge and, we hope, the conviction. It is sometimes hard to determine exactly whether cyber-bullying has played a role in someone’s successful prosecution, but I will endeavour to find as much detail for my hon. Friend as I can. We believe that existing law is able to ensure that where something is illegal offline it is also illegal online. We will, as we always do, keep under review whether the legislation is delivering. As things stand, we are confident that we have in place the right framework to ensure that where people are breaking the law they are called to task.
	This has been an excellent debate, one that has demonstrated that we have a shared commitment across the House to tackle cyber-bullying and bullying in all its forms. I thank Democratic Unionist party Members for using their precious time to raise such an important issue. We have more to do. We have a lot of work in train and we will continue to work collectively to ensure that we go further and faster to stamp out this horrendous crime.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises the serious problem of cyber-bullying and the appalling consequences for an increasing number of children and young people who are its victims; and calls on the Government to take action to help eradicate this form of intimidation and harassment, including the consideration of legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.

Persecution of Christians

Jim Shannon: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned that the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century; notes that there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith; further notes that Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally; bears in mind that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.
	It is a pleasure to bring this matter forward for consideration. The number of Members in the Chamber is an indication of the level of interest, and I look forward to outlining some of the issues.
	I believe that the persecution of Christians is the biggest story in the world that has never been told, and its importance cannot be underlined enough. The subject burdens me, and many other Members, judging by the number here. Each day we pray for Christians who are suffering persecution. It is important that we use the powerful tool of prayer to help them.
	I am reminded of the story told about Charles Wesley addressing his congregation in church. He was calling out a hymn and said to the congregation, “I want you to sing lustily. I want you to sing moderately. Most of all, I want you to sing in tune.” I believe that this House will be in tune today, because we are all united on the importance of this issue. Today’s debate will make that clear.

Mark Field: It is greatly to the credit of the Democratic Unionist party that it has secured this debate. Let us be honest: if this were happening to almost any other religious group it would be something of a national scandal. That makes it all the more important to put the ongoing persecution of Christians in many parts of the world on the political map. This debate will do that in the next two and three quarter hours.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think the rest of the debate will reflect that tone.
	One hundred thousand Christians will be massacred this year because of their beliefs. Two hundred million Christians will be persecuted due to their faith. One and a half billion Christians live in what can be termed as dangerous neighbourhoods. That shows the magnitude of the problem of persecuted Christians.
	There are Christians in the world today who cannot attend church as we do on Sunday and they cannot pray to God as we do—indeed, as we did before we started our business in this House today. There is an example of the importance of the Bible and our prayer time. These Christians cannot tell their friends that the Lord Jesus gave his life for them, and they cannot read their Bible as we read our Bible. They cannot carry out their own businesses; they cannot be involved in civic life; they face discrimination in education.
	Let us go right across the world from North Korea, where it is estimated that some 100,000 Christians suffer in horrific prison camps, to Eritrea where 2,000 Christians are in jail for their beliefs and 31 died in custody last year. Then there are countries in which Christians are in
	a minority—Sudan and Somalia, for example, where they are pursued relentlessly. Christians are also persecuted in countries where they are of equal numbers, while in countries where Christians are in larger numbers or in a majority, they are subject to radical Muslim teaching and abuse, as exemplified in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In Algeria, it is impossible to register church buildings or to legalise meetings.
	In Africa, due to Islamic extremism, the persecution of Christians has increased significantly in 2012 and 2013, most notably in Mali, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger. Sharia family courts have been introduced, which ignore Christians and their beliefs. The north of Mali is similar to Saudi Arabia in that Christians are simply no longer allowed to be there or to practise their beliefs. In the Maldives, one cannot read one’s Bible; indeed, people are not allowed to have one. If people are caught reading their Bibles on holiday in that beautiful country, they will be arrested, jailed and deported. I hope you will think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, the next time you decide to book a holiday to the Maldives.
	In Sri Lanka, Christians are subject to persecution. In Burma, Christians and ethnic minorities are bombed by Government aircraft and attacked. It would be helpful to hear in the Minister’s response some indication of how those issues were presented at the Commonwealth summit and what response the Prime Minister got. I understand that he brought the issues to the attention of the people attending.

Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this issue, which I know is a matter of concern to many of our constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like myself, be opposed to the persecution or harassment of any faith group of whatever denomination. The fact is that Christians face persecution and harassment in more countries than any other faith group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Commonwealth meeting. What we need, of course, is action internationally as well. What kind of action does he envisage would strengthen the international regime, international conventions and international agencies to try to stop such persecution and harassment happening?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We will discuss those aspects as the debate develops. There is clearly a role not just for this House, but for the Commonwealth, for the United Nations and for all the countries where persecution has taken place. They all have a clear role to play to help ease the pain of persecuted Christians. We should all try to achieve that.

David Simpson: My hon. Friend will know that I have an interest in India, where my adopted daughter comes from. In recent times, we have seen kidnappings, forced marriages, 18,000 people injured, 6,000 houses and 296 churches and small places of Christian worship burned and pastors murdered. It is a horrendous situation; something needs to be done about it.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are harrowing ones. I have them written down here, so I shall not repeat them. My hon. Friend, like many of us here, used to work in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I can remember him speaking on this issue back then. The story was horrific then; it is equally horrific today. The figures and the statistics are overwhelming.

Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for choosing this theme for debate. Does he accept that not just members of the Christian Church—him, me, many other Members and our constituents—but people of other faiths now believe that the Government and the Commonwealth in particular should be much more proactive about this issue? In reflecting further on the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), does he agree that one thing the Government could do would be to urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to argue for the Commonwealth to set up a specific group of people—of politicians and faith groups—to make sure that the human rights of faith minorities in the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, are much better protected than they are now?

Jim Shannon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very valuable contribution. I will mention Baroness Warsi later in my speech. She has outlined the issue from the Government’s point of view and explained some of the ideas she is thinking of. I will return to them shortly as I believe they show the direction we should be going in, and hopefully that will address some of the points Members have raised.
	In Indonesia and the Philippines Christians have had their churches burned to the ground and church members attacked and killed because they dared to tell others about the love of God, and that God is a God of love who loves them and wants them to be saved and in heaven. Now, in the 21st century, nearly 65 years since the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the UN—we can now think about the UN’s role and the role it can play—and with great improvements in technology and medicine, we might also expect to see an improvement in how humans treat each other. However, sadly, we still see severe violations of human rights around the world. Indeed one human right that is particularly violated is that outlined in article 18: the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is enshrined in the motion before us today, too; that is the thrust of where we are coming from. This right is one of the only rights defined as non-derogable in the international covenant on civil and political rights. That means that it must be protected at all times and cannot be suspended or reduced in times of emergency.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this subject before the House. What role does he think human rights legislation and constitutional protections might play in helping prevent the kinds of human rights abuses we are seeing at the moment?

Jim Shannon: As this debate develops, the Minister or his civil servants will frantically write down the answers to these questions. I have a number of questions as well. I am sure the scribes in the corner will be writing furiously throughout the debate; I hope I was not insulting them by calling them scribes.
	Those who drafted our international human rights clearly saw the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief as key to the inherent dignity of the human person and that it was important to protect it at all times. We should afford it the same weight; that is where we are coming from. To this end, I am pleased
	that the United Kingdom Government have designated the right to freedom of religion or belief as one of the top human right priorities for their foreign policy. We understand that to be the case and hope to hear it confirmed at the end of our debate. Will the UK Government agree that this right should be protected and promoted by all Governments worldwide? That is another question.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and what he is saying and some of the cases he is highlighting are deeply alarming. What I am particularly alarmed about is some of the instances he has mentioned within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a huge broad church of different faiths, beliefs and religions and we are a family. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be using the Commonwealth more to promote freedom of worship, as we do poverty alleviation and education, so that Commonwealth countries can promote that among non-Commonwealth countries in the particular parts of the world where they are located?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those very honest and true words, which every one of us can take on board and believe in. I hope we can exert pressure, including through our membership of the Commonwealth, to try to exact change.
	This Government are keen to pursue closer financial relations with China and there is nothing wrong with that. The benefits were outlined in the papers today, as were the pictures of the Prime Minister, but there are 100 Christian Church pastors in prison today because they are Christians—because they have a belief.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Christian Church worldwide is suffering from unprecedented persecution, and I welcome this debate. Given that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in China as we speak—unless he is on an aircraft—does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chinese authorities need to understand that the Christian religion is not a western plot, but has its origins as a religion in the middle east, in a town called Bethlehem?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and that is clearly an issue and China needs to understand that as well. As many Members wish to speak, if I may I will not take any more interventions.
	Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi has an important role to play. She recently drew attention to the persecution of Christians. I commend her for speaking out so boldly and clearly. In her speech she noted that,
	“the parts of the world where Christianity first spread, is now seeing large sections of the Christian community leaving, and those that are remaining feeling persecuted.”
	She has set the focus and attention where it should be: on the mass exodus of Christians from the middle east, which is very evident in Egypt and in Syria. In Iraq, Christians fled the cities of Baghdad and Mosul in 2005 after persecution intensified. These are the facts, but the increasing use of violence against Christians in the previously safe north has largely gone unnoticed in the outside world. On 22 September, a suicide bomb went off in the Kirkuk province, injuring 19 people,
	including the Christian politician Emad Youhanna. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. How are the UK Government working with Iraq to address this worrying development in northern Iraq?
	In Syria, Christians are caught between opposing sides in the conflict. There are an increasing number of missile and mortar attacks in Christian neighbourhoods in cities such as Damascus and Aleppo. Jihadists are now widely understood to have infiltrated the rebel movement in Syria. They specifically targeted Christian villages such as Maaloula, in September, and more recently Sadad, where 45 people were killed. Such incidents demonstrate what is happening.
	Now that the United Nations has set the date for Geneva II—22 January 2014—what are the British Government doing to ensure that the Christian community in Syria has a voice at the negotiations? Will the Government do everything possible through Geneva II to protect all the people of Syria, to safeguard the Christian community, to guarantee access for humanitarian assistance, and to establish a new Syria that respects the right to freedom of religion for all?

Mark Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Jim Shannon: I am sorry but I cannot; I want to give Members a chance to speak.
	I turn to Pakistan and the killing of 85 people and the wounding of 150 others in a suicide bombing attack. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan—the TTP terrorist organisation—is specifically targeting Christians in Pakistan. What will the British Government be able to do about that in their discussions with Pakistan? In Libya, Christians have been murdered for failing to agree to convert to Islam. The fall in the number of Christians across the region is very evident in Iraq.
	In Iraq, the violence is increasing. It is the Sunnis against the Shi’ites; the Kurds against the Turks, against the Arabs; the federalists against the separatists; the nationalists against the international jihadists; anti-Government versus pro-Government. Underneath all those levels of disagreement, the region’s indigenous, long-suffering, besieged remnant Christians will be the victims of every contact targeted by all forces. They are the target of every one of those groups. That is happening in Yemen, as well, and Christians are being attacked and murdered across the whole of Mexico, Lebanon, Colombia, Guatemala and Sudan.
	I turn to Nigeria, a country very close to my heart. We have had debates on it in this House, and we have raised the important questions and issues that we must try to address. The persecution of Christians in Nigeria takes multiple forms. We are all familiar with the horrifying fatalities resulting from the Boko Haram attacks. First, I would like to highlight the all-pervading pressure placed on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states, where they are effectively second-class citizens and converting to Christianity is a dangerous act not only for the convert, but for anyone who tries to help them. In the northern states, great pressure is exerted on the Christian community. They cannot bury their dead in public cemeteries. In public primary schools, Christian children are forced to attend Islamic studies and are beaten and/or expelled if they refuse. Teenage Christians
	struggle to gain access to secondary schools or higher education institutions. Christian girls were under serious threat of abduction, forced conversion and marriage. Access for Christians to development projects in these states is also severely restricted. What are the British Government doing to address this all-pervading social pressure on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states in Nigeria?
	Boko Haram is the militant group that targets Government and Church activities. Church leaders are often specifically targeted by this group. Many have been killed in Nigeria, and attacks against Christians in Nigeria have also reportedly been perpetrated by militants crossing the border from Chad and Niger. There are further examples of attacks upon Christians. A Catholic minister and his two sons were murdered in the northern state of Yobe. Their home and church were then set ablaze. The town of Gamboru was attacked twice. Six people were killed in the first attack, and a further 21 in the second. Militant cross-border terrorist groups are also fomenting religious strife in other African countries. Christians in Somalia and Kenya are being targeted by the group al-Shabaab. In the Central African Republic, the Seleka forces—involving members from the CAR, Chad and Niger—have been involved in the killing of at least eight Church leaders. It has also been noted by observers that the conflict in the CAR is developing a worrying sectarian element.
	Have the Government identified the increase in the activity of, and the persecution of Christians by, cross-border militants in Nigeria as a problem? If so, what are they doing to help the Governments in that region to address the issue effectively? I urge the Minister to respond to those and the many other questions that will emerge from the debate today. I thank hon. Members for their patience; I hope that I have been able to set the scene and to explain what this issue means to me personally and what it should mean to the House and everyone in this country. The persecution of Christians is an important matter. Let us pray for them and let us do our best for them as elected representatives in this House.

Mark Simmonds: I should like to set out the Government’s position on this important matter. A little later, I will sum up the debate and answer the questions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and those that other hon. Members will no doubt ask. I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this important debate, and I echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the party deserves enormous credit for choosing this topic, which is of significant importance to many people in our constituencies.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on his measured, detailed and thorough analysis of the many areas around the world in which Christians are suffering persecution. I am sure that he would be the first to admit, however, that in the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Syria and elsewhere, it is not just Christians but people of other religions who are suffering such persecution. That should be a matter of deep concern to all of us, whether we have a religious faith or
	not, because freedom of religion and belief is a gateway to other human rights and a litmus test of other fundamental freedoms. When people are persecuted because of the faith that they profess, the freedoms of expression and assembly and other human rights will often also suffer.

Mark Field: I accept that view, but would the Minister acknowledge the depressing paradox that some of the worst persecution is taking place in notional democracies? In some cases, the Christian population would be better looked after under a dictatorship—such as in Syria under President Assad—than in a country that is notionally democratic. This is not simply a matter of saying that a whole load of democratic rights will follow on from religious freedoms. We must ensure that religious and individual freedoms go hand in hand and that they do not find themselves in conflict with each other.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although he will be aware that we believe that President Assad’s regime in Syria has engaged in a deliberate attempt to stir up tensions between religious groups in order to hold on to power. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that these issues are extremely complex, but there is a direct correlation between the rule of law, human rights, transparency and freedom of expression as it relates to religion, whether it be Christianity, any other religion or no religion at all.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister has just read out a list that, perhaps surprisingly, sounds very similar to the Chinese constitution. Given the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in China at the moment, would the Minister like to put on record that the Chinese regime needs to abide by the terms of its own constitution and allow freedom of assembly for Christians, whether they are members of the official Church or part of the underground church?

Mark Simmonds: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I re-emphasise the fact that we strongly support freedom of religion for all, including in China—the example he gave—in accordance with international frameworks to which the United Kingdom and China are both party. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the Chinese Government, and we have a UK-China human rights dialogue for detailed expert engagement, which will engage with this particular area, too.
	Let me make a little progress, because I want to put on the record what the Government are doing about the persecution of those trying to practise their religion. We strongly believe that the freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. We believe that societies that aim to guarantee freedom of religion or belief are stronger, fairer and more confident. The situation facing Christians in the 21st century is alarming. Research by the Pew Research Centre acknowledges that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Strangford. The Government recognise that, and the persecution of Christians worldwide was the central focus of Baroness Warsi’s keynote speech at Georgetown university on 15 November. In that speech, we called for unity in
	confronting the intolerance and sectarianism that leads to minority communities being persecuted around the world and to a mass exodus of Christians from places where they have co-existed with the majority faith for generations. In the speech, she presented her vision for a cross-faith, cross-continent response to the problem, with a positive, practical focus on promoting the benefits of religious plurality to societies.
	A key element of that speech was that our response to the persecution of Christians should not be sectarian. We should not be standing up for our co-religionists or Christians in particular; we should be supporting the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, as set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. History points out that intolerance is defeated only when we come together. People of all faiths and none should be appalled when a bomb goes off outside a church. Indeed, both Muslims and Christians have come together to protect each other’s place of worship, and, as in the case of the terrible suicide bomb attacks on All Saints’ church in Peshawar, to donate blood for the victims. That needs to be the response that we all take to the global crisis affecting Christians.
	We should speak out on behalf of Christians. That is what we have done, for example, when we condemned the recent attacks that took place in Pakistan, which killed and injured so many innocent people. We should lobby for changes in discriminatory laws and practices that affect religious minorities, including Christians. We will continue to do that when, for example, an Iranian pastor is arrested for setting up a church in a house or for sharing his faith. We meet Christian leaders from around the world to gain a better understanding of their concerns and the issues affecting them. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers met Patriarch Gregorios III on 16 October to discuss the plight of Christians in Syria—the hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about that.
	We are active in supporting local Christian communities. That is why for a number of years we have supported the work of Canon Andrew White in Iraq, bringing together religious leaders across sectarian divides to denounce violence that occurs in the name of religion. Similarly, when I went to Kaduna in northern Nigeria—another example cited by the hon. Gentleman—I met religious leaders across the religious divide to see the valuable inter-faith work that was taking place there. I wish to discuss Nigeria in my closing remarks, if the House will allow me.
	However, I do not believe that making it our policy to defend Christians in particular is going to help them in the longer term. There is a risk of isolating them from the wider populations, identifying them as something of a fifth column and even exacerbating the persecution that they may be suffering. Instead, we should be supporting the building of societies that respect human rights, the rule of law and the equality and opportunity of all citizens, and spelling out that all freedoms of religion or belief are a universal concern.
	We are also making the case that countries that protect minority rights are stronger, fairer and more confident. If people are free to believe and to worship, they can make a bigger contribution to society, boost the economy and guard against violence, extremism and social strife. Other countries should protect Christians not just because it is the right thing to do, which it is, but because it is in their interests to do so. The freedom
	of religion is a fundamental human rights priority for this Government, which means that we pursue it as a major element of our bilateral work, our lobbying of other Governments and our human rights programme funding.
	We have equipped our staff with a toolkit to monitor and address concerns about freedom of religion or belief around the world. Our toolkit has provided the inspiration for the European Union’s own guidelines on freedom of religion or belief, and we have played a central role in securing both their adoption and implementation. We continue to play a leading role within the EU in making this a priority across member states in terms of focusing on particular countries of concern, programme funding or staff training. It is also a focus of our multilateral work at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Multilaterally, we are working through the UN to ensure that states implement the Human Rights Council resolution that focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society.
	During the UN General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a second meeting of international leaders to discuss what more politicians can do to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance wherever it occurs within our society.

Edward Leigh: The Minister says that we should not focus too much on Christians—I understand that—but if we accept that argument we should not have complained about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany because that would have made them a target. I do not necessarily accept all his arguments. He must accept that the overwhelming number of persecutions in the world today are against Christians. That is a fact, and so we have to focus on Christians for better or worse.

Mark Simmonds: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He says that the majority of those who are persecuted for their religious belief are Christians, but there are others who are suffering as well—people of different religions and of no religious faith. Another example that the hon. Member for Strangford gave was the appalling atrocities that are taking place in the Central African Republic, where Muslims are persecuting Christians and Christians are persecuting and murdering Muslims. The actions of both groups are completely and utterly unacceptable, and the United Kingdom Government need to do everything they can to ensure that a person can pursue their religion, whatever it is, without fear of persecution or intimidation.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in taking interventions. In order for there to be some balance vis-à-vis my remarks on China and following on from a debate a week or so ago in Westminster Hall, does he agree that Uighurs in the Xinjiang province of China also need protection, as do the Buddhists in another part of China?

Mark Simmonds: I think my hon. Friend is referring to the Buddhists in Tibet, which I have visited. Certainly, wherever people of religious belief exist, they should be
	allowed to practise free of persecution, intimidation and violence. As I have said before in relation to China or anywhere else, this is a main priority of our bilateral relations. We have raised this important issue in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Tony Baldry: This debate is entitled persecution of Christians. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, there is a risk of the Foreign Office not appreciating the real growing concern about the global persecution of Christians. It is not sufficient to say that because some other people are being persecuted, we should not be concerned about the persecution of Christians. There is a global issue about the persecution of Christians in a number of defined countries. If he looks around, he will discover that what the House wants to hear is what the Foreign Office will be doing differently to address that persecution.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention, and if my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress I shall set out the changes that will emanate from the work done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Simmonds: Perhaps I could make little progress, so that I can set out some of the changes that we are making.
	We are focusing on the multilateral work at the UN and the OSCE. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a meeting to focus on promoting freedom of religion or belief and fighting religious intolerance in our societies. At the OSCE for the past three years, we have showcased our work on freedom of religion or belief and combating hate crime against religious communities. Moreover, our work to promote the freedom of religion or belief continues to grow, as demonstrated by the creation of a new sub-group of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group to focus on freedom of religion or belief.

Jeremy Lefroy: rose—

Mark Simmonds: Let me set this out, then I will happily give way.
	We have also introduced new training courses to equip our diplomats to understand the crucial role religion plays in the world today. I should stress that the promotion of the freedom of religion or belief, of which the Christian religion is an important part, of course, remains a priority for all FCO Ministers. Collectively, we have a greater reach and more access to key interlocutors than a stand-alone ambassador on the subject matter would have.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the DUP on securing the debate. May I tease out from the Minister what he understands by the phrase “freedom of religion or belief”? Is it merely a matter of being able to worship, a matter of being able to worship publicly, or a matter of being able to worship in a public place, to tell others about one’s faith and to encourage them to join it? What is the exact definition? There seems to be some variance around the world—I am not saying that it is coming from Her Majesty's Government—in what freedom of religion is.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I gently remind the Minister and Members who continue to intervene that the debate must finish at 7 o’clock? I have 15 speakers on my written list and I would appreciate it, Minister, given that you will seek leave to speak at the end of the debate, if you could make more rapid progress through your speech to allow other Members to speak.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me give a brief response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy): I would argue that it is all of the above, as well as the right to change one’s religion or belief.
	In summary, the UK Government are committed to protecting freedom of religion or belief internationally and to standing up for the rights of Christians and others who are persecuted around the world, regardless of the country or faith concerned. We welcome the increased focus on that fundamental right that has been brought about by parliamentarians, particularly the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief. Our activity to further this fundamental right will continue to grow and develop.

Kerry McCarthy: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I know from past experience of speaking in Westminster Hall debates on human rights issues that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is passionate about the issue. He has made a number of speeches and interventions on the subject in previous debates and I congratulate him on persuading his party to table the motion today.
	As we have heard, freedom of religion or belief is included under article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights, which states:
	“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
	As we have heard from those who have spoken so far, in too many countries those freedoms, particularly the right to dissent from the majority religion and to change religion, are not respected.
	I commend the all-party group on international religious freedom. I attended its meeting with Baroness Warsi a few weeks ago and I am sure that we will hear from some of the group’s members this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the group on its report “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”. Although all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, it highlights the fact that religious freedom often remains on the margins. As we heard from the Minister, the abuse of someone's right to freedom of religion often acts as a gateway to other human rights abuses, such as those of the right to freedom of assembly or expression.
	We have to consider religious freedom as an intrinsic part of human rights and indicative of the level of civil and political freedom in a country. According to the Pew research foundation, almost 75% of the global population live in countries with Government restrictions or where harassment related to religion is common. We have discussed the fact that Christians are the religious group most subject to persecution. In 2011, a report stated that the harassment of Christians was most
	prevalent in 105 countries, followed by the harassment of Muslims in 101 countries. We need to flag up the fact that persecution is not restricted to Christians, but we are here today to discuss the persecution of Christians.
	Before moving on to the more commonly cited countries in the debate about religious freedom, I want to comment on the Central African Republic, which has been mentioned. According to the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Central African Republic has been described as
	“the worst crisis most people have never heard of”.
	There have been harrowing reports of violence, beheadings and villages being razed to the ground. France has warned that the country is on the verge of genocide, as violence between Muslims and Christians escalates. A third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will do all they can to try to prevent that situation from escalating even further and to bring relief to people on the ground.
	The plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt is more commonly known. As documented in Amnesty International’s report, “How long are we going to live in this injustice?”, there was an unprecedented wave of sectarian attacks on 14 August, when the security forces dispersed people in camps, and churches and Church-affiliated buildings as well as businesses owned by Coptic Christians were destroyed. The excellent report by Amnesty—I recommend it to people who have not read it—reported that 43 Orthodox churches were completely destroyed, and 207 churches were attacked. Not only were the symbols of Christianity attacked but Christians themselves, and four people were killed that day. That is part of a rise in sectarian tension in Egypt, following decades of discrimination suffered by Coptic Christians and impunity for the perpetrators. Egyptian law also means that it is difficult for Christians to rebuild their churches.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend has mentioned the Coptic Church, which is probably one of the oldest Churches in the world. Does she agree that when we talk about aid two of the issues that could be raised are human rights—there is a price to pay for aid—and religious freedom, regardless of whether someone is a Christian or belongs to any other denomination? The two have to work hand in hand to attain what we would call human rights.

Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. For example, we might look at aid to countries such as Uganda, which has introduced a Bill that has been discussed for the past few years. It is a private Member’s Bill, but it has support from senior figures, and it would introduce the death penalty for homosexuality. People have asked me whether we should give aid to a country that is considering such a measure. Should we give aid to other countries where, for example, abortion is denied to rape victims? It is a tricky situation, because if we deny aid to countries where people are persecuted, we run the risk of penalising the most vulnerable people we are trying to help. We need to send a strong message not about the conditions that we impose on aid but about our expectations of human rights in the countries to which we give aid. I shall come to that when I discuss the Prime Minister’s visit to China.

Simon Burns: The hon. Lady has raised a difficult issue, but it did not stop the west imposing sanctions on Iran for other reasons. Should we not look more at whether conditions should be attached to aid where there are particularly horrendous or general abuses of individuals’ freedom of religion?

Kerry McCarthy: I would not want to separate it out and just talk about it in the context of freedom of religion. We should discuss it generally in the context of human rights abuses. We have taken steps in countries where we think that there is corruption—

Bob Neill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kerry McCarthy: May I just finish answering the question?
	In several countries we would give aid directly to agencies working in the field, rather than putting it into the Government’s coffers, because of concerns about corruption and a lack of democracy. That might be a way forward when we have concerns about a country’s human rights record, particularly if there are recognised and well-established agencies, such as UN agencies, working in those countries that we can trust to deliver aid without discrimination and without supporting any measures that persecute people. As I have said, I think that we should look at a country’s record in the round. It comes down to whether we trust its Government to spend aid money in the way we expect them to.

Bob Neill: I do not think that we disagree with anything the hon. Lady has said, but why does she seem so reluctant to phrase her contribution in terms of religion and the particular persecution suffered by Christians? We are all in favour of human rights for everybody, but there is a particular and pressing concern about Christian communities around the world. Will she not be more specific in her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on ensuring that aid reflects discrimination against Christian and other religious bodies?

Kerry McCarthy: I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we should start carving up human rights by saying that some abuses are worse than others. That would be entirely wrong, because there are countries in which people of other faiths are being persecuted and killed, and we see persecution when we look at violence against women and attacks on LGBT communities. I accept that the persecution of Christians is a growing problem and that it is horrific in many countries, but I just do not think that we should divide it up. I think that we should look at whether a country respects human rights.
	This year saw the launch of the Commonwealth charter, which was trumpeted as the first time that all Commonwealth countries had signed up to a statement of shared values. I attended the Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Johannesburg this year. There was a lot of controversy, because it became apparent that not all the countries represented shared the same values, particularly when it came to LGBT rights.
	I will return to the issue of religious freedom. The Maldives has signed up to the Commonwealth charter and so is deemed to share the Commonwealth values of respect for human rights, but its constitution states that a person is not allowed to be anything other than Muslim, as we have heard, and no Christian gatherings or buildings are allowed. Citizens have to be Muslim, and that is enforced by pressure from families, society and the state.
	Bangladesh is another Commonwealth country. The Bangladesh Minority Council has lobbied and met me to highlight the treatment of Christians, Buddhists and, in particular, Hindus, who now comprise just 7% of the population. In Pakistan, as we have heard, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Ahmadis are at serious risk of violence and intimidation. Members will know the case of the Christian girl arrested last year for allegedly burning pages of the Koran, which brought to public attention the impact of the blasphemy laws in that country. We have also heard about another Commonwealth country, Nigeria, where horrific acts of violence against Christians are being carried out. We have to question what we can do within the Commonwealth. If we say that the Commonwealth is a club of shared values, what can we do when members of that club do not seem to be putting those principles into practice? It is really important to take that question forward.
	The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the plight of Christians in Syria. Of course, that is not the only country from which Christians are being forced to flee. Open Doors has warned that Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq, where their population has fallen from 1.2 million in the early 1990s to just 333,000 today. In Iran, Christians have had to flee their homes or the country, Muslims who have renounced Islam face the death penalty and Christians are being sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. The special rapporteur on human rights in Iran reported that more than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010, including Saeed Abedini, who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for this work with the house churches. Other faiths, not least the Baha’i, also face persecution in Iran.
	On Burma, we know about the religious tensions in Rakhine state, where the Rohingya Muslims’ faith is a factor, as well as their ethnicity, but Christians in Burma have suffered persecution too. The Chin Christians have been targeted for their ethnicity and their faith. A report by the Chin Human Rights Organisation documented cases of forced labour, more than 40 separate incidents of torture, and 24 official complaints from Chin Christians of human rights violations, including rape and extra-judicial killing, where no action was taken against the perpetrators.
	As we heard earlier, Open Doors ranked Saudi Arabia second on its world watch list, with only North Korea ahead of it. Conversion to a religion other than Islam is punishable by death, and Christian worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. It is important to note that last month saw the elections, mostly uncontested, to the Human Rights Council, of which Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, as well as China, are now members. I echo the comments I made about the Commonwealth club. If these countries are to be members of the Human Rights Council, they need to be demonstrating in their own countries that they are putting respect for human rights into practice.

David Rutley: I remember being on a visit to China with the hon. Lady a few years back, when I was intrigued to find out that there are over 60 million Christians there. To help take forward greater tolerance for human rights and freedom of religious worship, does she think it is important to have greater inter-faith dialogue engaging the Chinese authorities with Christian groups and other groups to help people to appreciate just how big the Christian community is in that country?

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I, too, was astounded to hear that figure, because one would not have appreciated that the Christian community was so strong in China. He is entirely right that dialogue is one of the ways forward. It is very important in many other cases where part of the persecution arises from the fact that people do not feel able to speak out and proselytise and publicise their religion and feel it is something they have to keep under wraps.
	Of course, the Prime Minister is in China at the moment. Before his trip, I tabled some parliamentary named-day questions, which unfortunately were not answered when they should have been, asking him what efforts he was going to make to raise human rights during his visit. I know that it is primarily a trade delegation, but he has gone to a country where Muslims, Buddhists and Christians, as well as Falun Gong practitioners, suffer torture, harassment and arbitrary detention, and the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are prevented from exercising their freedom of religion too. It is important to use such a high-profile visit to raise those issues.
	I was impressed by Baroness Warsi when she came along to the recent meeting of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. She seems to be very committed to pursuing this issue. My concern is that she has been given the human rights brief and it is almost as though it has been put in a box so that she will be travelling around the world talking about human rights, which frees up not only the other Foreign Office Ministers but all the other Ministers who are going on trade delegations abroad—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but in all fairness, when the Minister got to 16 minutes I said to him that lots of people were waiting to speak.

Kerry McCarthy: I am on my last page.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Good. One minute, thank you.

Kerry McCarthy: I am concerned that it is almost as though one person has been delegated the job of talking about human rights and that means that everybody else is free to just go and talk about trade and does not feel that they ought to use the leverage that a trade mission gives them to raise human rights issues too. It is very important that the Prime Minister does that. I asked him about it when he recently went to Saudi Arabia and did not seem to raise human rights there either.
	In conclusion, as you will no doubt be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that Parliament works with faith groups in this country that have connections with groups abroad. Open Doors and,
	in particular, Christian Solidarity Worldwide have been very active in the past few years in encouraging Members to bring forward parliamentary debates. There is also a central role for the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, as we have discussed. The role of Government should be to push for greater compliance with the universal declaration on the human genome and human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, to support the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and to press countries with outstanding requests to agree to inspection visits, and indeed other special procedures mandate-holders covering other human rights. Given its membership of the human rights council, the UK has the opportunity to work with our international partners to strengthen protections for basic fundamental freedoms. Support for the freedom of belief must be part of that. No Government can be selective in the human rights they endorse, just as the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister cannot be selective in which countries they challenge on their human rights record.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There is going to be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches from now on. It may be necessary to take it even lower, depending on the frequency of interventions.

Tony Baldry: First, I am grateful to my friends from the Democratic Unionist party for introducing this debate. I think the whole House will feel that it is particularly apposite, given that this is the season of Advent, when we think about our belief in God becoming incarnate in the vulnerability of a baby and the peace that should bring to earth.
	May I say, on behalf of the Back Benchers, that it would have been helpful if both Front Benchers had listened to the debate and then responded to it, rather than taken up the majority of their time in setting out the line they want to take? That very act says to the House that neither they nor their Front-Bench colleagues have really got the point that what we are trying to tell them is that there is a serious issue with the global persecution of Christians, which is being seriously under-reported and not being properly understood or effectively answered.
	It is no good the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talking about the equivalence of human rights. Everyone in the House supports the equivalence of human rights, but that is not what this debate is about. It is about the persecution of Christians and the fact that there is now practically no country—from Morocco to Pakistan—in which Christians can freely practise their religion. That must be a matter of real concern to this House.
	There is a severe danger, as we start to celebrate the feast of Christmas in this country, that Christianity will be almost completely erased from the traditional middle east Holy Land of the Bible. Joseph would not now be advised to take Mary to Egypt to avoid the dangers of Herod, because Jesus would just not have been safe there today.
	What I think we are collectively trying to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and
	Skegness (Mark Simmonds), and the Foreign Office is that this issue needs a much higher profile. I would be interested to know when my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State or any other ministerial colleague last raised with the ambassador of Saudi Arabia the comments of the mufti who said that he wished to see every Christian church in the Arabian peninsula destroyed. Such comments cause us all great concern.

Fiona Bruce: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that despite our great presence in Afghanistan over many years, there is now no Christian church left there?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend introduced an excellent Westminster Hall debate on this issue and she makes her points very well.
	Every week, because of my responsibilities in this House, I read the excellent newspaper the Church Times, and every week it has heart-rending stories of Christians being persecuted in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and a whole host of other countries. Those stories never get reported in the mainstream newspapers. There is serious under-reporting of what is happening to Christians, many of whom—this is true of generations of Christians throughout the centuries—are being evicted, persecuted and driven from their homelands.
	I would really like both Front Benchers to understand that what the House is trying to say today is that it is not prepared to continue to stand by while there is global persecution of Christians. They should not think that the line they want to take is sufficient. A step change and something different is required in response to the fact that 200 million Christians are now threatened with persecution, the loss of the right to practise their faith and the loss of their livelihoods, homes and even lives. That is not acceptable; it has to change.

Nigel Dodds: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I agree with everything that he said about the Front Benchers’ approach to this debate, as well as about the equivalence of human rights.
	Of course all hon. Members from both sides agree that everybody’s human rights should be protected, but it does no good to sit back and pretend that there is no particular problem about the persecution of Christians in the world today. We need to highlight that, and not feel guilty or feel that we must be politically correct all the time. We should say it as it is, and be very clear that there is a real issue, as hon. Members have already highlighted.
	I was interviewed about this debate on BBC Radio Ulster this morning. The thrust of the four questions put to me was, “Why on earth are you calling this debate? What’s it about?” The subtext was that the debate is not really that important. I have come to expect that from the BBC, but I have found in my constituency and across Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same goes for many right hon. and hon. Members—that people are concerned when there is suffering.
	People are of course concerned about all forms of suffering. We only have to look at the fantastic responses to natural catastrophes, such as the contributions made in relation to the recent typhoon in the Philippines, for which people in my constituency have set out to raise money. The idea that people should not be concerned about what happens in other parts of the world is typical of the liberal media in this country. The fact is that people are concerned, and we are right to raise such issues by highlighting the persecution that Christians face and providing a voice to those oppressed because of their faith.
	The persecution of Christians is not new—we know from historical records that there have been persecutions since biblical times—but the staggering fact is that Christianity is the most persecuted faith in the world today, with more than 100,000 Christians killed because of their faith each year, which is one every 11 minutes. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, more than 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights because of their faith. Over the past three years, the situation has deteriorated globally.
	The Government’s responsibility should be to highlight to other Governments what is going on and to uphold the human rights of everyone suffering persecution for their faith, but particularly Christians, given the severity of the purge now happening in many regions of the world.
	To follow on from what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, it is particularly painful that in Afghanistan, where there has been so much suffering and sacrifice by our troops and where so much aid and assistance has been given, no churches at all are left, and Christians are unable to meet in public because they have been subject to numerous cases of kidnapping, assassinations and abductions.
	The same applies in Iraq. Canon Andrew White, who has been mentioned, has said that Christians in Iraq
	“are frightened even to walk to church because they might come under attack. All the churches are targets… We used to have 1.5 million Christians, now we have probably only 200,000 left… There are more Iraqi Christians in Chicago than there are here.”
	The debate on the persecution of Christians that the hon. Lady initiated in Westminster Hall focused on that area.
	The Arab spring, which has been welcomed by so many, has turned out to be a chilling experience for Christians in that region. They are being disproportionately affected by the violence. In Egypt and Syria, Christianity is effectively and systematically being wiped out altogether. In Saudi Arabia—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), mentioned that it is second country on the Open Doors watch list—there is no provision whatever for religious freedom among its people.
	The Senior Minister of State in another place, who has responsibility for faith and communities, recently said that Christians are often targeted for “collective punishment”, as some groups believe that they are responsible for what are perceived as injustices committed by the west. That is particularly striking in communist countries, such as North Korea, which is the first country on the Open Doors watch list, and China.

David Simpson: Is it not ironic that we have got to the point in the world, and indeed in Europe, where other religions are admitting that Christianity is under severe pressure and faces severe persecution?

Nigel Dodds: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	I pay tribute to the organisations that are doing their level best to highlight what is going on. Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Barnabas Fund and Aid to the Church in Need are just some of the organisations that highlight the persecution of Christians.
	I will not go through a list of all the countries where Christians are being persecuted. I have mentioned a few and other hon. Members have raised the issues in countries such as North Korea and China. However, I want to mention Nigeria in particular. There is a growing problem in Africa, where Islamist extremism has penetrated much of what is happening in many countries in terms of uprisings and destabilisation, for example. In Nigeria, there is a serious attempt by Boko Haram to create an Islamic state and to annihilate Christians and Christianity. I could also mention Kenya, Eritrea, where the situation is particularly bad, and the Central African Republic, among others.
	This debate provides an opportunity for the representatives of this United Kingdom to speak out and highlight the problems that are faced by Christians worldwide, and to ask that our Government do even more through their bilateral relations, their aid programme and their foreign relations to make it clear that there must be consequences for countries that continue to violate human rights on such a massive scale, even if our country has close links with them in other ways. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights needs to be upheld and defended, and never more so than in this day and age, when the persecution of Christians is so rife.

Bob Neill: May I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his party on securing this debate? I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
	I say gently to the Front Benchers on both sides of the Chamber that, however good their intentions, we should not be afraid, in the Parliament of a country that still has an established Christian Church, to phrase a debate in terms of religion or Christianity. Christianity can benefit everyone in any society. It gives us in this country a shared moral compass that binds us together. It offers the same to believer and non-believer, Christian and non-Christian alike, not just in this country but elsewhere. We should therefore not be at all afraid to speak up about the persecution that Christians face.
	May I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as Open Doors, which provided me with valuable material for a recent debate on this subject in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which came to my constituency surgery recently to highlight these matters? Canon Andrew White has rightly been mentioned. I also commend to the Government the work of the former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, in whose former diocese my constituency lies. If Ministers have not met or spoken to Dr Nazir-Ali, I hope that they will do so, because he has shed light on the persecution in his native country of Pakistan and elsewhere.
	It is worth restating that while any persecution of any faith is wrong, the pressure on Christians is particular and acute. We must face the fact that in some parts of the world, that persecution comes from a religious/political ideology. I regret to say that some, although not all, elements of the Islamic world demonstrate that problem. In some cases, the persecution comes from states—China and other states have been mentioned—that are aggressively secular. It is right for us to say that it is not good enough for a nation’s constitution to say that people have freedom of religion as long as it is through a state-approved Church. It is not acceptable for one part of a constitution to say that freedom of religion is guaranteed but another part to undermine that by saying that a particular form of Islamic jurisprudence trumps all others, as in Egypt.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Neill: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; time is short, and I want to make progress so that others can get in.
	I hope that the Government will use the leverage that they have. That is why I do not have any problem at all with our developing trade links with China—I hope that we can use the leverage that comes with that developing relationship to remind people that, as other Members have said, membership of the club of modern economies should bring with it respect for religious freedom, and for Christians in particular.
	One particular concern is the situation of Christians in the Arab world. They face discrimination in almost every country of the Arab world, with perhaps the only notable exception being Lebanon. The latest Open Doors list of the 50 worst countries in which to be a Christian includes every Arab world country. It is legitimate, as a matter of policy, for us to seek to use our leverage to change that situation.
	I have friends and contacts in Egypt, and Members have referred to the situation of the Coptic Church there, which has been established for centuries, almost millennia. That situation has got worse because of political and religious persecution over the past few months. Again, I hope that the Government will use the leverage that we can have with Egypt to ensure that the new draft constitution not only reflects a genuine right to religious freedom for all, particularly the Coptic community, but entrenches it in practice. For example, it should remove discriminatory provisions regarding the building of Christian churches, which evoke laws that go back to the Ottoman era and have been a problem in Egypt. We have a chance to work with the interim Government in Egypt to achieve a genuinely better constitution for all religious minorities, but the reality is that the largest and most pressured religious minority in Egypt is the Christian minority. We should not be afraid to say that.
	Like other Members, I hope that we can consider what more support we can give beleaguered Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, which are some of the oldest in the Christian world, through the Geneva II process. It would be a tragedy if the Arab spring, which we all welcomed, turned into a winter of oppression and discontent for Christians. That is not in the interests of the Muslim majority in those countries any more than it is of Christians.
	We should not be afraid of doing religion in this House occasionally. I hope that if we can have this debate, it means that we have got to a happier place, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that when they take on board what has been said today. Governments are entitled to do religion sometimes, because religion can be for the good of all of society.

Tom Greatrex: I am pleased to have the chance to make a short contribution to this timely and important debate. I, too, congratulate DUP Members on choosing this subject.
	Many Members who are in the Chamber today were also present for the Westminster Hall debate that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) secured on the persecution of Christians in the middle east. During that debate I made a short intervention to highlight the real concerns of the Christian community in Malaysia. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who was responding to the debate, rightly said from a sedentary position that Malaysia was not in the middle east. I understand that, but it highlights the importance of this debate in enabling us to discuss places outside the middle east in which there is significant concern about how members of the Christian faith are treated.

Lady Hermon: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why so few of his Labour colleagues are in the Chamber this afternoon for a very important debate about the persecution of Christians? I am absolutely baffled by their absence.

Tom Greatrex: I was going to say that I thanked the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure why others are not here. I specifically want to make a case in relation to Malaysia, which I hope will help to illuminate the debate and add another aspect to it.

Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that he mentions Malaysia? The persecution of Christians is a worldwide problem and is not specific to one small part of the world, and the subject of today’s debate is the persecution of Christians in the 21st century.

Tom Greatrex: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is absolutely right. The case I wish to make is about a country that is often portrayed in a very different way, and I hope that this debate will bring more attention to a situation that I have been made aware of in recent months by a constituent.
	I am contributing to this debate not so much from the perspective of a practising Christian as from the perspective of somebody who is deeply and fundamentally committed to ensuring that human rights are properly protected. The religious activity and practices of people in any country, as long as they do not harm anybody else, is of little interest or direct concern to me, but their ability to observe their faith is absolutely of concern. That is why I want to raise some points about Malaysia this afternoon.
	Many Members present will have seen the “Malaysia Truly Asia” tourist advertising campaign, which has been stunningly successful over a long period. I am sure
	that many will also have visited Malaysia as tourists—as I did many years ago—and appreciated a tolerant, respectful, gentle and hospitable people, and a society with the reputation for being a Muslim state, but one steadfastly multicultural with Malay, Chinese, Indian and other significant minority communities that include, according to the 2010 census, 9.2% of the population who are practising Christians.
	Malaysia is an important Commonwealth partner for the UK, and has had a significant trading and strategic relationship with this country over many years. Because of that background, it is right to be concerned about recent worrying signs in Malaysia, and to draw them to the attention of the Government through this debate. Some Christian communities in Malaysia are now very much in fear of being able to practise their faith without interference, or with limits on their ability to observe their faith in peace.
	Christians in Malaysia fear persecution because they have been banned from using the word “Allah”, which has been used as terminology for God in Malay for centuries. That has effectively meant that in some parts of Malaysia the Bible has been outlawed. When a concern was raised—or an attempt was made to raise it—in the state legislative assembly in Sarawak, it was ruled out of order and sub judice, so the legitimate concerns of Sarawak Christians about the Malaysia agreement that governs the relationship stretching back 50 years between the peninsula and other parts of Malaysia, have effectively been censured.
	Although freedom of religion is supposedly guaranteed by article 11 of the Malaysian constitution, the reality for many is quite different. In his introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred—I think in the context of Nigeria—to Christian children being whipped. It has come to my attention that there are significant reports of Christian children being whipped for eating pork, and of Christian children who have to board in state schools because of where they live being forced to convert to Islam. Last month the Malaysian Government’s religious affairs department, which is part of the Prime Minister’s office, reportedly issued a sermon to be read in every mosque in Malaysia, condemning supposedly liberal forces undermining Islam. The implication taken by many people in Malaysia was that it was aimed at those who practise the Christian faith.
	With Portuguese, Spanish and indeed British colonial influences, it is not surprising that there is a significant Christian community in Malaysia. They have co-existed with others, perfectly happily, for many years since independence more than 50 years ago, but Christians in Malaysia now fear that the country may be embarking on a dangerous path. The Minister for Islamic Affairs in Sarawak, Daud Abdul Rahman, has called for members of the Sarawak Islamic religious department to be upgraded to become a sharia prosecution department, and to be supplied with firearms. According to “Free Malaysia Today”, he said:
	“With this departmentalization, it can enhance the ability of the prosecution and thereby strengthening Islamic Sharia law in Sarawak.”
	There is real concern that such behaviour has relatively little to do with religion or the tolerance and understanding that religion can often promote, but that it is about seeking to create supporters who identify with one
	political party as pro-Islam, and brand their political opponents as anti-Islam. That is a dangerous road to take, because it unleashes mindless aggression, prejudice and fear. The non-Muslims of east Malaysia are right to be fearful of where that might lead next. Shocking situations can arise when countries of mixed religions and races allow and encourage the development of extremism and prejudice, even in our modern world.
	Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That right includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community, in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
	Father Lawrence, the editor of TheCatholic Herald in Malaysia, refutes claims that there is a concerted movement to convert Muslims to Christianity, and highlights what I think is my principal aim: to express the need for tolerance and acceptance. He stated recently:
	“Ask these people making these claims how many Muslim persons have converted to Christianity. Ask the Attorney General what is the meaning of ‘Our Father’ and ‘Hail Mary’. He will say that he studied in a Catholic school. Did he convert? No, he is still a Muslim. Ask Prime Minister Razak if he knows the ‘Our Father’, because he also studied at St John’s Institution, a Catholic school.”
	These men were schooled in a Christian environment, but were free to practise their own faith. The problem in Malaysia now is that it seems that the Government’s policies are effectively making that impossible for people in the other direction. I implore the Minister and his colleagues, when they represent the Government abroad—taking into account the important, specific and specialist relationship between the UK and other countries around the world, such as Malaysia—to use that opportunity to highlight the fact that human rights are also about the right to practise religion without fear of prosecution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can just advise the House that, when the time limit on Back-Bench speeches was set at six minutes, there were an intended 15 contributors, since which time two hon. Members have withdrawn. I am therefore in the happy position of being able to raise the limit. My apologies to those who had to adhere to the shorter limit, but I am now raising the limit to eight minutes with immediate effect. The first beneficiary is Angie Bray.

Angie Bray: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I intend to be brief as I am looking forward to hearing what other Members have to say. I join others in commending Democratic Unionist Members for securing this important and timely debate, just a matter of weeks before Christmas.
	As I have mentioned in the House before, I am proud to be an officer and active member of the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief, which has been up and running for nearly a year and a half. In that time, we have built up a strong membership, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and a list of key supporters from many different religions and representatives of those who choose not to have any religion. At the heart of the group is the passionate message that protecting
	the concept of freedom of religion or belief is of paramount importance. While this debate rightly focuses on the unacceptable persecution of Christians in countless places around the world, we must also condemn any instances of persecution against any religion.
	That was the position we took as our starting point for our first report, on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. We made a series of recommendations to the Government on measures that we think different Departments should take to help to improve the situation around the world, including an ambassador-level position with responsibility for promoting freedom of religion or belief; putting pressure on the UN to find sufficient funding to support a full-time special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and calling on the Department for International Development to identify freedom of religion or belief as a new priority in its work.
	It is also right for us to mention, in the context of this debate, the superb work already being done by Christian stakeholders on behalf of both their own community and the numerous other different communities experiencing persecution, including humanists. Most recently, Gregorios III, Patriarch of the Church of Antioch, came to talk to us about the dreadful plight of Syria’s substantial Christian community, which since 2011 has been ripped apart by the bloody conflict there. His response to the outrageous events was to say:
	“We call for dialogue, reconciliation and mutual respect for and among parties and for the crisis to be resolved by peaceful means.”
	Among the Christians there are many Iraqi Christians who sought refuge in Syria after experiencing persecution in Iraq, and have now found themselves driven out of the country that had become their new home and safe haven.

Angus MacNeil: Is not one of the concerns that we had when Parliament was recalled a few months ago and we were asked to vote on intervening in Syria what effect that might have on the Christians within Syria, particularly given the experience in Iraq?

Angie Bray: It was certainly made very clear to us when we heard from the Patriarch that he felt that a peaceful means was the only way to help the Christians and many others caught up between the two sides who found themselves in such a difficult situation.
	Syria, and the middle east in general, is perhaps the most shocking, recent and obvious example of the fact that violence against Christians and other religious communities is on the rise, yet as a recent report from Aid to the Church in Need set out, this is a truly worldwide problem. While it is concerning that a region such as the middle east, once so widely populated by Christian communities living in peace and harmony with their non-Christian neighbours, is now seeing a huge decline in the number of Christians living there, this problem is growing in many parts of the world.
	Only by looking at religious persecution globally can we stand a chance of protecting people and their faith. Understanding the complex reasons for sectarianism on a local level is clearly essential because of the different forms it takes in all manner of far-flung places. Again, as part of our group’s work, we recently heard from the Indonesian ambassador, who briefed us on the situation
	facing Christians who experience persecution on some of the islands that make up Indonesia. He described how organised outside influences can stir up local feelings in a deliberate manner, sowing the seeds of persecution. The Government, he told us, do not always find it easy to tackle the problem because of the geographical nature of Indonesia.

Bob Stewart: On that point, I have met mujaheddin groups who have told me, cold-bloodedly, that their job was to come and kill Christians. That was in Bosnia in 1993.

Angie Bray: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. In fact, I was just going on to make similar points myself.
	One of the concerns I raised when the Pew Research Centre recently briefed our group on its latest figures on religious persecution across the world, either by Government or by local populations, was that sometimes it is surely neither Government nor local populations that start the problem, but insidious third-party forces that operate across national boundaries in a global fashion in pursuit of their own, often extreme, religious ideologies. We have to think about how we deal with this growing phenomenon—fed, in this modern age, by the internet, as well as by determined preachers on the ground.
	Today’s debate asks us to focus on the plight of Christian communities across the world, but I think this leads us to considering a much wider picture of persecution of all kinds of faith and, indeed, of those who wish to live without faith. Homing in on one kind of persecution might help us to consider what could be done for other faiths, too. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said recently after the tragic bombings of Christian churches in Peshawar:
	“We need to condemn the persecution of anyone on behalf of their faith.”
	As we are discovering as the all-party group continues its work, almost every faith is persecuted somewhere in the world, and we must all stand together to resist this and to work to uphold article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which asserts the right of everyone to choose their faith or none—and, indeed, to change their mind if they wish.

Sammy Wilson: It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important because of the scale of the problem, because of the individual suffering that people experience across the world, and because this issue is actually sanctioned by the Governments of many countries, demanding a response from the UK Government.
	The scale of the problem has been outlined very well by previous speakers. Some 200 million Christians are under severe risk of persecution, with many thousands killed every year and ethnically cleansed from their towns and homeland. Some 50,000 Christians have been cleared from the city of Homs in Syria during the civil war. In Eritrea people are being imprisoned on a regular basis. In Sudan before it was partitioned, over a 30-year period 2 million Christians were killed by the regime. That is the scale of the problem.
	It goes on even today. Within the last month, hundreds of people, from Nigeria to Eritrea to Kazakhstan to China, have been arrested and put in prison simply because of their faith, and when they go into prison they are denied due process. They are denied access to lawyers. They are sometimes even denied knowledge of the charges facing them. They can languish in prison for a long time and in horrible conditions.
	Any other overseas problem on that scale would have been a priority for the Foreign Office, yet the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman attempted to widen this topic, rather than to zone in on the real issue, which is this is a particular group of people who are being persecuted.
	As has been pointed out, this is not only happening in Muslim countries. From Morocco to Pakistan, Christians in Muslim countries are under threat, but it happens elsewhere too.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my parliamentary postbag, of the persecution of Baha’is, particularly in Iran. Does he agree that regardless of whether those persecuted are Baha’is, Christians or whatever, a message must come out from a plurality of voices that the persecution of people on the basis of their faith is a very un-Islamic thing to do?

Sammy Wilson: Absolutely, and I think that is the point we need to be making in the House. Persecution of people of whatever faith by people of whatever faith is wrong.
	We can go beyond the Islamic countries to Korea, where 70,000 Christians languish in prison, some of them in the most horrible conditions. I do not want to start telling lots of individual stories, but one struck me in particular. We found in Northern Ireland during the troubles that people can get numbed by numbers—they come to be seen as just statistics, rather than as highlighting the real suffering behind them—but 6,000 Christians are languishing in prison No. 15 in North Korea. They are regularly brought out on a Sunday, and two people are selected and paraded in front of the rest of their fellow Christians, stabbed with pointed bamboos and called on to renounce their faith because then the torture will then stop. Many of them, of course, finish up being murdered because they will not renounce their faith. Leaving aside the huge numbers, that is the kind of horror and individual human suffering we are talking about.
	As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, when the Nazis carried out such acts in concentration camps we pursued the prison guards and those responsible to the ends of the earth, to prosecute them and to make sure they were brought to justice, yet it seems there is not the same response when it comes to the persecution of Christians. That is not just to do with the Government, of course. It is to do with the media, too. I thought it was striking that when 80 Christians were blown up at the beginning of November as they worshiped in Pakistan, the BBC found it so important that it came below the Emmy awards in the news agenda. That seems to be the level of seriousness that is attached to such issues.
	One of the reasons for that sort of response is that, in many instances, such persecution is actually sponsored, sanctioned and encouraged by the Governments of the
	countries concerned. We have already heard the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of all Christian churches on the peninsula. Human Rights Watch has said that the most dangerous place for a person to be a Christian today is Pakistan, and that much of that persecution is sanctioned by the Government there. A lot of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is fomented by official sources—and so it goes on around the world. When we point to and specify the persecution of Christians, perhaps we are actually pointing the finger at Governments who, possibly for political reasons, we sometimes need as allies, and at Governments who, for commercial reasons, we need as trade partners. If that is the reason we are not prepared to be specific about this persecution, it is a great shame on the Government of our country.

Angus MacNeil: Although we have our concerns about persecution, perhaps we should be highlighting good practice where it occurs. There are indeed Islamic countries that are tolerant, and perhaps we should hold up the examples of Senegal, Bangladesh and Turkey, where there is a lot more tolerance compared with the societies we are concentrating on. We should make it clear that there are examples of Islamic states in which we would all be quite happy to live.

Sammy Wilson: I am not so sure about the human rights situation in the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
	What can and should be done? I know this is a debate about what the Government should do, but the media have a responsibility. Where such unpleasant things are happening, they should be given proper coverage that is communicated to the wider world. Baroness Warsi said in Georgetown last month that it is important that we get an international coalition against such abuses, and that includes not just Governments but journalists, judges and all the people who can bring to the notice of the world the abuses taking place, do something about them, and deal with those engaged in them.
	As has been mentioned, we give aid to many of these countries. I do not accept the argument that, by denying aid to them, we in some way disadvantage the people who live there. If that were the case, we would not impose sanctions anywhere, because there will always be people who are disadvantaged by sanctions. If the aid is going to a Government who are engaged in and supporting these practices, it is particularly easy to make it clear that no further aid will be given. As has been said, sometimes this is not a question of physical persecution but of economic or educational discrimination. When we think about how we spend our aid money, perhaps it should be targeted at persecuted groups.
	We have talked about the ability of the Commonwealth to put pressure on the Governments of countries across the world over which we have some influence, where these abuses take place. This requires a concerted effort. It requires us not to be politically correct, but to have the courage to say, “This is happening to a particular group of people. It will not be tolerated, and there will be things which this Government will do.”
	I have asked many questions about this. I have been told that the Government are aware of the situation and that they are monitoring it, looking into it and pressing the matter. We need more than that when people’s lives are being put at risk in this way.

Rehman Chishti: It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party for choosing this important topic for debate. I come from a Muslim background, and my father was an imam. When I saw that the topic was “Persecution of Christians in the 21st century”, I knew that it was absolutely right and proper to have a debate on that subject. It is important for the world to realise that persecution goes on. I was speaking to a good friend of mine, the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, about this, and he told me that the persecution of Christians was taking place in more than 130 of the 190 countries in the world at the moment. That is completely and utterly unacceptable; it is a very sad state of affairs.
	When I was thinking about which area to focus on in the debate, it was difficult for me to decide because the persecution is so widespread. When it is taking place in more than 130 countries, which country should I pick? I narrowed it down and chose a country that I know well. I was born in Pakistan and had the great privilege, pleasure and honour of serving as an adviser to the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. She wanted reform, but she lost her life. She wanted a progressive Pakistan, but the radicalisation elements and certain others did not agree.
	That is why, when I saw the topic for the debate, I had to choose Pakistan as the subject of my speech. The persecution of Christians is a major problem there, and I want to focus on the blasphemy laws. I recently read an article published by the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, an organisation that covers the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and abroad, which stated:
	“The Blasphemy law is at the root of much suffering and persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The use and abuse of this law is the fundamental issue underpinning discrimination and open violence against Christians and local churches”.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can obviously speak from experience in his own country. Does he accept that when Muslims stand up for Christians in Pakistan, they too put themselves at risk? When the governor of Punjab stood up for and visited a Christian girl in jail, he ended up being murdered by his own bodyguard.

Rehman Chishti: I know more than many others about that issue. I lost my good friend Benazir Bhutto to radicalisation. She was two weeks away from winning an election, after which things could have changed. We had discussed reforming the blasphemy laws, but she was never able to do that. That is the problem in Pakistan, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it very well. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, had raised the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian. She is a 46-year-old mother of six children, and she is still in prison in Pakistan. She was supposed to be pardoned by the President in 2010, but owing to pressure from the radical right, she was never freed. That was totally unacceptable. Pope Benedict said that what was happening to her was unacceptable and called for her release. However, she is still in prison in Pakistan and facing the death penalty. People in Pakistan stand up for her, but they know what the dangers are.
	However, this does not mean that the Government of Pakistan cannot stand up and do the right thing by repealing a bad law. That bad law is the blasphemy law, and the abuse of that law must be dealt with. It is used to settle disputes between one neighbour and another, under sections that were brought in between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia, who was himself a radical. He was an extremist, and he introduced a section that stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed. That is totally unacceptable. Those sections of the blasphemy law that were brought in during the Zia era are bad law and they have to go. The Pakistan Government could and should do that, but, as has been mentioned, Governments themselves face certain pressures. They can stand up, as the Minister with responsibility for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian, did. He said that this law was wrong, but what happened to him? He was killed. What happened to Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab? He said it was wrong and he was killed. So we have to understand the difficulties for Governments in changing these laws, but they have to change them.

Alistair Burt: I have listened with great care to the debate because the policy that I supported in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the subject of a certain amount of criticism. What my hon. Friend is touching on is important, in that it is about the pressure of culture on governance? That is present in not only Pakistan, but in a number of Arab countries. It makes it difficult for Governments who would like to respond in the manner that we would all wish, but they cannot because they are frightened, sometimes to death, by their populations. What we are talking about today is as much an issue of culture that needs to change, as governance. We all wish that the problem was easier to solve than it appears to be.

Rehman Chishti: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important comment. Before I address it, may I thank him for all the hard work he did when he was an FCO Minister, especially in the Asia Bibi case? He made representations to the Government of Pakistan, as has the high commissioner in Pakistan, Adam Thomson, to whom I have spoken about this. My right hon. Friend makes a point about how one deals with the culture. A significant part of that is about changing hearts and minds, which is linked to the aid we give certain countries. If it is used properly, we can deal with the issue of changing hearts and minds.
	Amnesty International has said that the blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a form of religious persecution and that they should be repealed. I entirely agree with every word that has been said on that point.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech, on which I congratulate him. Is the message that is coming strongly from his speech that when persecution takes root, no matter where it is aimed, it ultimately ends in the persecution of a number of people in society to whom one would never have imagined it happening at the beginning? As he well knows, the persecution extended so far in Pakistan that it led to the death of his friend Benazir Bhutto. In some ways, that was an end point to that very sad persecution—it went everywhere.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; he is right and I have nothing further to add.
	Apart from repealing the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, because that may take time, what can we do now to push the Government of Pakistan to deal with those laws? Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States has made comments that are similar to my view, as has Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. He says, and I say, that, first, these laws should not be dealt with by the lower courts in Pakistan, because they are more susceptible to corruption and intimidation by religious groups in the communities; secondly, that specialised prosecutors should deal with blasphemy laws in that country; and, thirdly, that specific judges have to deal with blasphemy laws. When I was on a flight from Karachi to Islamabad last year, I met 12 high court judges and a supreme court judge there. I asked them whether I could raise certain points with them and they said that I could. I then asked whether I could raise the point about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and they said of course I could. However, when I asked why the blasphemy laws were abused in Pakistan, the high court judges said to me, “No blasphemy law is abused in Pakistan.” If that is the mentality of judges at the high court in Pakistan, what hope does anyone have of justice in that country? That is why I say that specific judges trained to deal with blasphemy issues should deal with these cases.
	The other thing that should happen is that there should be a body in the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control that authorises prosecutions, because in that way the process would not be subject to intimidation at any local level. If allegations are made, cases would have to go to a specific cell in that Ministry that deals with blasphemy laws and if it gives authorisation, a charge should follow. In that way, we could deal with some abuses that are going on at the moment. That would go some way to dealing with such cases, but other people may have other suggestions for dealing with them.
	There is another way of addressing this issue. President Zardari could have done it in 2010. I know that well because I raised it with him, but he was not able to pardon Asia Bibi. We are all entitled to have our own separate faiths and beliefs but let us think about Asia Bibi. She is 46 and has five children and has been languishing in prison for four years. She was condemned to death by a lower court, not knowing whether her appeal would come through. Is that a civilised world? Is that right and proper if it happened to one of us or someone we loved? Absolutely not. The Government of Pakistan under a new President and Prime Minister have a moral obligation to do the right thing and ensure that Asia Bibi is released and pardoned.
	Finally, when those who are persecuted for their faith seek asylum in another country, they should be given priority. Someone being persecuted in that way could be taken outside and shot under the blasphemy laws, so giving priority to those who are seeking asylum and who have been persecuted on grounds of their faith is the right way forward.

Stephen Pound: It speaks a great deal to the credit of this House that the brother of a priest can follow the son of an imam, that I can be seated behind an ordained Presbyterian Minister and
	that, in front of both of us, is the nephew of Sister Assumpta, a Presentation Sister from Dungarvan in County Waterford. All of us present and those not present in the Chamber are united in our respect and admiration for the Democratic Unionist party in raising this debate tonight, particularly for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He is a man who does not just profess his faith in private and does not just talk the talk, but lives his faith. In the words of Timothy, he is an example, and we all have reason to be grateful to him.
	We are here to discuss a situation that is beyond doubt. There is no question that Christians are the most persecuted single group in the world today on grounds of religion. It is one thing to talk about persecution and to list the horrors, but when one thinks of Christians in this century, in this very year, being crucified in Iraq, we realise the depth of sheer horror that we are looking at. Dedolence is not an emotion that usually informs this House. The emotion that most of us feel when we hear such things is of a very deep and genuine sort.
	I would like to focus my remarks on one small area, and that is the area of Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and I, with our good friend Emmanuel Yacoub from the Assyrian Democratic Movement, visited Iraq quite recently. It was an extraordinary and overwhelming emotion to be standing in the desert that nurtured the Desert Fathers, to be in the plains of Nineveh, to see the tomb of the Prophet Nahum, and to be in the area where Christianity first found its feet and grew. If Armenia was the first ever Christian country in the year 301, the Christian history in the middle east is so deep that it goes back to the birth and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
	I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) visited the area immediately before us. He has spoken on the matter far more eloquently and powerfully than ever I could. One does not have to be a genius to areolate the future of Iraq. A country that once had a Christian population the size of Northern Ireland now has a Christian population less than that of the borough of Ealing. Many of the people who have left, particularly those who served the British as the Iraqi levies—I think of the great families in my own constituency of the Khorshabas, the Michaels and the Jasos and the family of my good friends Jenie and Isaac Asia—gave an enormous amount to the British. Talking about targeting assistance and help at Christian communities simply identifies them and makes them a target in the other sense of the word, and many of the Christian communities in Iraq are already targeted.
	It was a tradition of the British during imperial times to work with a particular group of people. One might think of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and particularly of the Christian communities such as the Chaldean Assyrians in Iraq. They worked loyally and faithfully with the British and we promised them at that time that they would be free to practise their religion. Sadly, that is not the case.
	Frankly, many of us are overwhelmed by the immensity and the horror and we wonder what best we can do. The hon. Member for Strangford probably said the most important thing, and I make this point extremely seriously. There is one thing we must do. We must assist wherever we can financially and materially and we must raise the profile, but we must never, ever forget to pray for our
	fellow co-religionists. The power of prayer is immense and it has an incredible force. Let us never forget suffering Christians in our prayers. Let us continue to do that. Advent might be a couple of days old, but this is a powerful season for prayer.
	On the question of Iraq, I would like seriously to suggest to the Minister that we consider supporting the idea of an autonomous Christian district in northern Iraq on the Nineveh plains, particularly in the Tel Kaif and Al-Hamdaniya area. That has been suggested for many years—they are ancient Christian Assyrian Chaldean lands—but they would not be exclusively for Christians. It has been said over and over again that this will be for the local community and would allow a breathing space for Christians. It would allow that simple, basic right to worship our shared God in the place of God. Why can we not support that?
	The hon. Member for Strangford has already mentioned Emad Youhanna, who was attacked with a suicide bomb outside his house. That did not happen in the last century, or in the last decade—it happened on 22 September 2013 in Kirkuk, in Rafigayn. Emad Youhanna is a member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement and of the Iraqi national Parliament. That bomb injured 19 people, including three of Rab Emad Youhanna’s children.
	I seriously suggest that we could support the idea of a safe haven. I understand that a strange argument is emerging that Christian communities were safer during what is still called “Saddam time” in Iraq. That is a false argument. There might not have been slaughter on the streets, but when the dictator runs a dictatorship no one is free and the Christians who were tolerated one day could be slaughtered the next, so please let no one make the case that, under Assad or Saddam Hussein, it was somehow a golden period for Christians. It might have been less worse, but in the long term the doom was just as serious.
	I suggest that we remember our co-religionists in our prayers and support the idea, particularly in the north of Iraq in the plains of Nineveh, of an autonomous Chaldean Assyrian region. Anyone who has stood as the hon. Member for Gainsborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway and I have and felt the chill fear that abounds in those hot, burning desert sands will know that we cannot stand by and do nothing. We must support these people. This is the land where Christ’s message was first promulgated to huge numbers. It is an area and a land that we must respect. It is a holy land; let us make it safe for Christians.

Edward Leigh: I very much agree with all that my good friend the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has said and support the comments on Assyria. I do not know whether you managed to get some rest on Sunday, Mr Speaker, and watch once again on BBC4 the excellent French film entitled “Of Gods and Men”. It is a very beautiful film about the appalling murder of six Benedictine monks in the Atlas mountains. It is such a moving film because there is one scene in which Father Christian confronts one of the terrorists—the same terrorist who ultimately decapitates him and his fellow monks. Father Christian starts reading from the Koran in Arabic and quotes directly the passages that exhort all Muslims to be peaceful to other religions. The terrorist completes the
	verse. That makes most powerfully the point that we should make in this debate: in practising our own religion, in no way do we diminish the practice of other religions or people’s ability to practise their religion in any way they wish.

Fiona Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: I shall give way only once in a moment.
	Many of the people we are discussing—the persecuted Christians of the world—are the poorest of the poor. In Pakistan in particular, they are very much at the bottom of the heap, and they are denied human rights. All that they require in their simple lives is an ability to practise their religion, so this debate sends a powerful message about their right to freedom of expression.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend says that in no way do we diminish other people’s right to practise their religion if we practise our own. Society has enhanced that right: where we respect the right of one religion and people of one faith to practise their faith, we respect all if we respect that properly.

Edward Leigh: I would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his powerful speech. It is slightly regrettable—I say this gently—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke at the beginning of the debate. It is increasingly the practice for Ministers to speak early in debates—I make this point particularly to you, Mr Speaker—but it is important that they listen carefully and respond. [Interruption.] The Minister will give a winding-up speech, but it will be much shorter than it would have been.
	I have taken part in every one of these debates, and I have heard this Foreign Office speech many times before. Dare I say that I do not detect a sense of burning anger about what is happening to Christians? This is something that has increased, and it is one of the most terrible things happening in the world today. Of course we should regret, attack and be angry about any persecution of any religion. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned that Christians were persecuted in 105 countries, or their human rights were somehow limited, but she immediately tried to be relative—I think that there is a danger of relativism in this debate—and said that there were 101 countries where Muslims had their rights affected. That may be strictly true, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming number of really violent and dangerous persecutions, killings and denials of human rights are directed at Christians, which is why we should congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who continues, year on year, to raise the issue. It is down to the DUP, not the Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition, that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on that.
	This debate is not a relative debate about human rights. It is a debate about the persecution of Christians. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, speaking with all the authority of his office, and everyone who has taken part in this debate demand that the Government take this more seriously and speak out more powerfully.
	There was an appalling case in All Saints church in Peshawar in which 120 Christians were blown up. How much publicity was there about that case? If a similar outrage were perpetrated by a Christian suicide bomber going into a mosque and blowing up 120 Muslims, it would be considered appalling, and the House can imagine the consequences worldwide for Christians.
	I am afraid that, for all the warm words from the Foreign Office, there is still a lack of real determination to speak out. We have been in this space before, with the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s and the persecution of many minorities over time, where we as a Government have drawn back because of trade and other considerations of national policy, and we have not been prepared to speak up for minorities.
	I want to follow what my friend the hon. Member for Ealing North, said, because I have been there. Like him, I have been to Iraq, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that there is nothing more terrible than what happened to a mother I spoke to. The last time she saw her child was when he went off to church with her husband. The husband was kidnapped and never seen again. The child was murdered just because of his religion—for no other reason. My friend and I will never forget those conversations, because those attacks revealed an appalling level of hate. We invaded Iraq and we have a responsibility, so we cannot pass by on the other side. Maybe we invaded for good reasons, but we do have a responsibility.

Stephen Pound: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinarily humbling and salutary to realise that the language in which that mother addressed us through a translator was Aramaic, the language of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

Edward Leigh: It was moving. To listen to a mass in Aramaic is an extraordinary experience.
	I make no apology for Saddam Hussein, and I quite understand the comments that have been made about Iraq, but things have become much worse since the invasion. The fact of the matter is that Iraq’s Christian population has fallen from around 1.2 million to around 600,000, because tens of thousands have fled. When I was in Mosul, in ancient Nineveh, Christians were being murdered and dozens of families were fleeing. Where did they flee to? They fled to Syria. What did we have a debate about at the end of August? We had a debate, once again, on the need to bomb Syria. Thank God some of us refused to support that and the House of Commons said no. Otherwise, what would have been the fate of the Syrians?
	I have also been to Syria and heard numerous appalling examples of what is happening to innocent Christians there. Again, I make no apology for the Assad regime, but under his father there was a degree of protection. Can the Government be so sure that in arming those they call the “good” rebels, or encouraging them—they claim that they have in no way armed them—they are not also leeching support and armaments to the bad rebels? There have been appalling examples of persecution in Syria. Mass graves have been found in the village of Sadad, where 46 Christians were murdered and where a family of six—this is just one family—were blindfolded and shot in the head. A 26-year-old, Ninar Odisho, was shot in the street, murdered for his faith. I could go on
	and on with such appalling examples of violence and hatred shown towards that ancient Christian community in the middle east.
	Pakistan has been mentioned. Quite rightly, there was wonderful worldwide publicity about the shooting of Malala Yousafzai and her courage in resisting the Taliban, but how much coverage has there been of Kashmala Munawar, a Christian girl who lost one leg and nearly lost the other when she was blown up because of her religion? As I said earlier, how much worldwide coverage has there really been of the appalling massacre in Peshawar?
	This debate is timely. I very much hope that when the Minister responds he will reflect the powerful mood of the House of Commons. This cannot go on. We cannot have tens of thousands of people around the world losing their human rights, or having them endangered, and thousands being murdered. The Government have a role to play in articulating our anger. It must stop.

Margaret Ritchie: I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing this motion, along with his party, the DUP, on the persecution of Christians in the 21st century. This afternoon’s debate has been reflective and instructive. Many Members have spoken with a great deal of knowledge about the persecution of Christians, and not only in the middle east, but further afield. My hon. Friends the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and I receive in our mailbags correspondence from constituents vehemently opposed to the persecution of Christians.
	We are opposed to the persecution not only of Christians but of all religious groups; this debate should not reflect sectarian or sectional attitudes or principles. However, we must recognise that Christians have been persecuted in the middle east and in other parts of the world. As the former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said, this has a lot to do with cultures and Governments. There is a need to change the opinions of cultures and Governments to persuade people that it is not right to burn Coptic churches in Egypt, to massacre Christians in Sudan and in Pakistan, or to burn people out of their homes because of their religion.
	It is particularly significant and poignant that we are discussing this issue at the time of Advent as we approach Christmas—the birth of the person who founded Christianity. It is interesting that most of the persecution is happening in the countries of the middle east where Christianity was born but where the number of Christians is dwindling as they are being forced out.
	Baroness Warsi has said that 83% of countries guarantee freedom of religion but many are not making provision for it. The Catholic Archbishop of England and Wales said of the possible extinction of Christians in the middle east:
	“I think in some parts of the Middle East that is probably true…There are real challenges for Christians in this part of the world to support and get alongside them and also for politicians to understand that the presence of Christians is a great mediating factor, often for example between different segments of Islam.”
	When the German Chancellor addressed members of the Lutheran Church, she said that Christianity is
	“the most persecuted religion in the world.”
	We have these testimonies from people who are respected in their own right and are highlighting the problems faced by Christians in this world. We should appreciate that religious freedom is one of the most important gateways to other forms of human rights and freedoms.
	It is regrettable that the comments by Front Benchers did not reflect the rest of the debate. I hope that they will be able to explain, if not today, at a later stage, what we are going to do about the persecution of Christians in Sudan and other parts of north Africa, the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt, the persecution of Christians in Iran, and the fact that Christians no longer exist in Afghanistan. What will be done to honour the principle of the UN declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief?
	There is a duty on the Minister to address that issue tonight. The Government also need to actively promote the multinational efforts of the European Union and consider whether it might also be possible to do things through the G8 and the G20. They also need to put pressure on the Governments of nations where Christians are persecuted to take responsibility, protect religious groups and eradicate intolerance.
	Some of the greatest vices in the world today are those of religious intolerance and sectarianism, which breed not only hatred and violence and the mutilation of people, but the desecration of homes, families and human life. If we believe in the principles of human rights and religious freedom, we must urge the Government to do all in their power to work with other Governments throughout the EU and the world in order to ensure that all pressure is brought to bear to end and eradicate this iniquitous violence, terror and murder.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The wind-up speeches need to begin at 6.40 pm. Three Government Back Benchers are seeking to contribute, all of whom I want to accommodate, so a degree of self-restraint and consideration would help.

David Burrowes: I welcome this incredibly important debate and congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing it. I also welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and the Minister for faith, the noble Baroness Warsi, have noted the importance that the Government place on the issue.
	Sadly and regrettably, none of us needs to apologise for focusing on the issue of Christian persecution or to qualify why we are doing so, because the scale and nature of that persecution throughout the world this century is appalling. Some years ago we might have been able to discuss the discrimination and persecution of Christians in the context of their status as a minority and argued that their human rights needed to be respected and that we needed to do much more to protect them. That is not what we are dealing with now.
	Christians throughout the world, particularly in the middle east and Africa, are being persecuted and discriminated against not just because they are in a
	minority—indeed, they are in a majority in some cases and may be equal in number in others—but because they are a target. Those who are being persecuted now see themselves as a target, not simply a group following a particular religion. That is evident from the scale of the persecution.
	I welcome the Minister’s comment that the issue under discussion should be a litmus test of other human rights. It should not be picked off as simply one among many human rights that we need to debate, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), suggested. We need to hold the Minister and the Government to account every time they attend trade delegations and visit other countries, and ensure that they direct international aid to the right places. This is a litmus test of how often the issue of religious freedom is raised and of how much we can seek improvement in countries of concern.
	The Minister is an ambassador for religious freedom, as indeed are all the other Foreign Office Ministers. He will, therefore, want to report back to us on occasions other than dedicated debates on how much the Foreign Office is doing in those countries of concern to ensure that the principle of religious freedom is being upheld.
	I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness Warsi in Washington. Indeed, they have been echoed by Members today. She said:
	“Across the world, people are being singled out and hounded out simply for the faith they follow or the beliefs they hold.”
	She said that in some countries, as we have heard,
	“a mass exodus is taking place, on a Biblical scale”
	and that
	“there is real danger that Christianity will become extinct.”
	I welcome those important words from the Minister for faith. She also said that article 18 on the protection of religious freedom is
	“the most translated article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights”,
	but “the least heeded” by those we share a table with at UN and EU meetings.
	We need to ensure that the Government do God, as they have rightly said they do, and that they do so by protecting article 18. In particular, they need to ensure that this is about the manifesting of belief and sharing it with others, which is a key issue. We must ensure that United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 is properly implemented across the board, and I ask the Minister to respond about that.
	Baroness Warsi’s meetings in January in London and in September in New York are extremely welcome and important, as are the engagement on bilateral agreements, the project work and the diplomatic support that is going on. That has a particular focus in relation to the freedom to change religion, which must be properly recognised, but it is important to accept that there are different understandings and interpretations of article 18. We must ensure that the international covenant on civil and political rights is signed by the Arab countries with which we trade that have not done so: Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should all sign it, as should Burma.
	We must ensure that we get the language right. Persecution happens in all forms: deliberately, in burning down churches and killing Christians, but as we have heard, also as economic discrimination by the state and others, including against Christians in Iran. I took part in the inquiry by the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief, which has shown that there is discrimination across the board.
	There has been a focus on trying to restrict people to the private sphere; a sort of privatisation of religion. President Morsi has said:
	“As long as the apostate keeps it to himself…he should not be punished… However, someone who proclaims his apostasy in public, and calls for others to follow suit, is a danger to society…the law and the shari’a intervene.”
	Where the rubber hits the road is when someone wants to change religion, particularly from a non-Christian—indeed, a Muslim—background. That is when they really need protection.
	It is important that we are clear about the language, because we want to talk not only about freedom of worship, but about freedom to manifest one’s faith. Following the massacre at Maspero in Cairo in 2011, the Foreign Secretary said:
	“The freedom of religious belief…needs to be protected... The ability to worship in peace is a vital component of any…democratic society.”
	It is important to say that, but the Foreign Office must go further on the ability to manifest one’s faith.
	The Home Office must also act in relation to asylum applications from those who have converted to Christianity and have been told, like some of my constituents, “You aren’t a pastor. You don’t need to go out in public and share your faith, because that isn’t your profession.” Christians are obliged as part of their calling to go out and show their faith, and they need to be protected across the board.
	I must finish, but let me say this. We have now entered the Christmas period, which is an important time to make it clear that we want to protect religious freedom in all its forms. I hope that our speeches will be well heard, and that we practise what we preach in all channels and communications.

Andrew Selous: Things are so bad for Christians across the world that we should have a debate such as this at least annually. When the Archbishop of Canterbury came to the Jubilee Room, he said that speaking out on behalf of persecuted Christians really matters, because the persecutors of course want to get away with what they do without anyone seeing or noticing. That is why our debate is so important.
	Religious liberty in this country is so important because it gives us the moral authority to raise with other countries the concerns that we are quite properly expressing today. I want to put on the record the Open Doors world watch list of countries in which persecution is most severe. It states that there is absolute persecution in North Korea; extreme persecution in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Maldives, Mali, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea and Syria; and severe persecution in Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, Libya, Laos, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Vietnam, Oman and Mauritania. Open Doors is particularly concerned about those 23 countries on its world watch list 2013.
	It is not too much of a parallel to say that the position of Christians in the middle east in the second decade of the 21st century is analogous to that of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. I am not the first person to say that—I think Lord Alton of Liverpool has said it in another place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) recently said it in Westminster Hall—and it is not hyperbole to say so.
	It is really important that Christians around the world and people of other faiths have the freedom to change faiths. May I press the Minister on what the United Kingdom has done at the United Nations Human Rights Council? It is felt that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has blocked the issue of the freedom to convert, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke powerfully by quoting President Morsi.
	On occasion, our Government have not been as robust as other Governments in dealing with this issue. In a speech in the other place on 9 December 2011, Lord Patten said that concerns had been raised with him by Anglicans in Turkey that they were not allowed to worship in public. He was told by the Government that nothing much could be done. However, he pointed out, by way of comparison, that the German Government had managed to get the Turkish Government to take action on the position of German Roman Catholics in Turkey. I say gently to the Minister that more could be done on occasion. We should follow Germany’s more muscular approach in that instance.
	When Ministers and members of the royal family travel overseas, it would be good if they made contact with Anglican priests around the world. At every level—governmental, political, cultural, business and individual—these issues must be raised. That is how we will change the culture, as has rightly been said.
	Finally, although this debate is, of course, set in the overall context of human rights, there is a severe and pressing issue as far as Christians are concerned.

Fiona Bruce: As I am the last Back Bencher to be called to speak, I understand that I am limited to four minutes. I therefore not only thank DUP Members for calling the debate, but wholeheartedly support what has been said by the hon. Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), for South Down (Ms Ritchie), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and, most eloquently, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).
	In the short time that I have left, I want to welcome the speech by Baroness Warsi on 16 November in Washington, which has been referred to, in which she said that persecution is the biggest challenge we face in the 21st century. She called it a “global crisis”. If, as we hear, Christianity is the most persecuted religion on earth, 80% of religious persecution is suffered by Christians, Christianity is at risk of eradication in countries across the globe and the situation is worsening, the persecution of Christianity and Christians is a global crisis. That
	crisis needs a co-ordinated international response and the British Government should take a much stronger lead in that. Having sat through the whole debate, I believe that that view is shared by many colleagues.
	We need more than words, meetings, resolutions and declarations; people want to see action. As I went about my constituency at the weekend, I was surprised that several constituents came up to me and expressed their pleasure in seeing that this debate was taking place in the House. That is not something that happens often. I believe that the British public are looking for more action on this issue.
	I share the concern of other hon. Members over the comments made by the Minister in his opening remarks. However, at least he is here. The motion states that
	“the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century”
	and
	“calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.”
	I am disappointed that no Minister from the Department for International Development has been here throughout the debate. I was also disappointed that no DFID Minister attended the recent Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in the middle east. If, as this Minister says, we should be providing resources to address this issue, that ought to be something that DFID Ministers are considering. DFID should be prioritising this in its aid provision. It has recognised that girls, women and whole communities can benefit from education, and it needs to wake up to the fact that if we defend and strengthen people’s right to practise their faith and live in a more peaceful society, it will produce a more productive and flourishing society for all, whatever faith is being defended and supported. I therefore ask DFID to consider seriously how it will respond to the motion.
	I do not know why there has not yet been adequate involvement on the part of those involved in development work. Perhaps it is due to a misplaced fear of that involvement being confused with proselytising, or being seen as being biased or as promoting western colonialism. That is political correctness of the worst kind, because people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. I challenge DFID to review its policies. In the Westminster Hall debate I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), to do that, and he said that we had the “Faith Partnership Principles” document. But that does not address the issue. Will DFID please do so?

William McCrea: I thank all Members who have contributed to this important debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for setting the scene of the many atrocities committed against Christians, and I appreciate all his efforts to raise the matter in Westminster Hall debates and on other occasions.
	I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their understanding, although I was somewhat concerned that they widened the debate beyond the motion. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) brought back the proper focus in his excellent
	contribution. The Minister acknowledged that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, and I agree with the shadow Minister that if countries want to be part of the human rights club, they ought to play by the rules.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his usual thoughtful contribution, which focused the House’s attention on the motion. The tone and content of the contribution that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made were absolutely right. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was asked about his colleagues, but we deeply appreciate his presence and contribution.
	We agree with the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) that we ought to reject the persecution of anyone because of their faith. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) brought a tone of reality, giving chilling accounts of persecution not only by other religious groups but aided by Governments and authorities in various parts of the world. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) reminded us of a number of countries where persecution is going on, and he was courageous in speaking personally about the situation in Pakistan. We deeply appreciate his interest and his contribution.
	I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) for his usual eloquent exposition of the tragedies facing Christians in Iraq. He also reminded us that we need to raise the profile of persecuted Christians across the world and pray for them, and I agree wholeheartedly. I thank him for his helpful and thoughtful contribution. I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate believe that civil and religious liberties are not for some but for all, and the debate has focused on that. As he explained, the night of persecution grows even darker in some parts of the world, even when we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan and sent our soldiers to fight for liberty and freedom.
	I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that the debate has been reflective and informative—that is certainly an appropriate description. The hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made thoughtful contributions. I appreciate that time was unfortunately too limited for them to expand their remarks, but I know they take a keen interest in this issue and have contributed to other debates.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) had just a few moments to contribute, but I believe this House owes her a great debt of gratitude because she tirelessly raises this issue again and again. Her encouragement and depth of knowledge is worthy of commendation and recognition, and I am happy to give that on the Floor of the House on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Stephen Pound: Briefly, before we move on, may I share with the hon. Gentleman a message I have just received from Stormont from my colleague the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), shadow Secretary
	of State for Northern Ireland? He said that of all the debates he has missed, this is the one he regrets the most and he wishes he had been present. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, he had to be in Stormont today.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, and I have no doubt that the shadow Secretary of State would have attended this important debate and been happy to participate in it.
	Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights emphasises the right to have certain freedoms, and I was just thinking what an amazing thing freedom is. It was what our fathers and forefathers fought and died for. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled this motion for debate acknowledges that for many, that freedom is being denied.
	We make no apology whatsoever that the motion focuses directly on a group of people worldwide who are increasingly becoming isolated and are constantly under attack for their simple faith in Jesus Christ. The sad reality is that one Christian is killed for their faith every 11 minutes somewhere on earth, and many Governments remain totally silent about that situation. It is our desire to highlight the persecution of Christians not only in far off regions of the world, but in Europe and our own land. The list from Open Doors was helpful and gives the top 50 countries where the persecution of Christians happens for religious reasons. That certainly helps our understanding and points to the number of places where such persecution is going on.
	There is the influence of Islamic extremists, and we are now witnessing an increase in the persecution of Christians, which is shown in many different ways. For some it is a violent attack from Islamic groups, such as the looting and burning to the ground of a Pentecostal church in Algeria. There are kidnappings of Christians for ransom in Egypt, public lashings for those practising Christianity in Saudi Arabia, and crucifixions in Iraq—we could go on, as that is only the tip of the iceberg of what we know. Sadly, the persecution of Christians is not debated often on the Floor of the House.
	In several countries where Christians are a minority, persecutions are perpetrated at both state and community level. Indeed, through the intensity of that persecution, the existence of a small Christian community is often threatened, with many feeling they have no choice but to flee to safety somewhere else. For many, however, there is nowhere they can safely go—they cannot afford to go anywhere else.
	When the Minister winds up, we must recognise that the persecution of Christians is going on in countries that receive financial aid from many Christian taxpayers in the United Kingdom. When we think of £1.325 billion to Ethiopia between 2010 and 2015, £1.392 billion to Pakistan for that period, £1 billion to Bangladesh, £1 billion to Nigeria, £710 million to Afghanistan, and £643 million to Tanzania, we must realise that that is taxpayers’ money, yet there is persecution of Christians.
	We should always remember that persecution does not only happen somewhere else, because charity starts at home. Many Christians in the United Kingdom feel isolated at this time, and for many in this House, if they
	openly profess their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they witness the rolling of eyes, or disbelief that somehow today we really believe the Bible is the word of God, and we are scorned and ridiculed for that. As a believer, I unashamedly say that I do believe that the Bible is God’s precious word. I am guided in my public life, as well as in my private life, by the word of God. In our country, there are many sad instances of persecution of street preachers—even carol singers are under attack because of certain legislation that is, or has been, proposed.
	I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for her attendance. She has been here for a large part of the debate.
	In conclusion, what should we do? We have to speak up, because by so doing we also speak for many of the weak, disadvantaged and defenceless people of the world. Thank God our faith will prevail. The Lord Jesus said:
	“I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
	While we are being persecuted, remember that the blood of the martyr is the seed of the Church.

Mark Simmonds: With permission and with the leave of the House, I wish to respond to this important and significant debate. I reiterate that it is to the huge credit of the Democratic Unionist party that it has raised these important issues.
	Correctly, this has been an impassioned debate outlining many of the horrors and persecutions suffered by Christians around the world. The situations in numerous countries have been raised, and the simple fact is that Christians are persecuted more than any other faith group in the world. The nature of this persecution can take many different forms and the perpetrators vary from Governments to militant groups to even a person’s own family. Faith is often used as a proxy for other divisions, as religious fault lines are exploited.
	Let me be absolutely clear to the House: the Government are not silent and the Government are not quiet. When Christians are persecuted, we, as Government Ministers, speak out clearly and forcefully. I cannot stress enough how seriously the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes this issue, as part of our commitment to freedom of religion around the world. Promoting respect for human rights is at the very heart of the Government’s foreign policy. Where Christians or any religious believers are victims of persecution, we will condemn the violence and ask the relevant authorities to ensure that justice is served. There can be and should be no impunity for those who persecute individuals on the basis of religion or belief.
	A particular spotlight has been shone on the situation for Christians in the Middle East. That point was made powerfully in the wonderful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). We have heard of the exodus of Christians from the region, and of communities that have co-existed for centuries now turning on minorities and treating Christians as outsiders. That is simply unacceptable.
	Persecution is not limited to the middle east, and, where Christians are attacked, it is rarely just Christians who are suffering—whether they be Shi’a Muslims in
	Syria and Pakistan, and Rohingya Muslims in Burma. None of that persecution is acceptable and none of it should be tolerated.

Alistair Burt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Simmonds: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way as I want to answer the specific points raised in the debate.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I can tell him that freedom of religion and belief was discussed by the Heads of Government, who agreed to strengthen the communiqué’s language on this subject, and we warmly welcomed that. The Foreign Secretary announced last week the setting up of an advisory group of experts on freedom of religion and belief. That will help us increasingly to factor in a faith-based perspective to our foreign policy.
	The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) rightly raised the challenges faced by Christians in Malaysia. I can inform him that the high commission in Kuala Lumpur raises the issue of respecting religious diversity with their Malaysian counterparts on a regular basis, and last did so on 7 November.
	I want to make sure that Members across the House understand the Government’s position on the right to freedom of religion or belief. We interpret freedom of religion or belief according to the definition set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which includes the right to practise the religion in public or private, and to share it with others. It also includes the right to change one’s religion and to have no religion at all.
	I fully agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief should be a priority for all countries. We, along with EU partners, sponsor a resolution at the UN twice every year on this subject. We have also agreed guidelines on the promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief with EU partners. These guidelines are already helping the embassies of all EU member states to promote and protect the freedom of religion or belief in a wide range of target countries.
	A number of hon. Members raised the important issue of Syria. We are committed to speaking up on behalf of all those who are targeted, and we have made it clear that those responsible for these violations should be held to account—and the International Criminal Court may have a role to play. I confirm that there are Christians among the members of the Syrian National Coalition who will be invited to the Geneva II talks.
	Hon. Members have raised the issue of Nigeria, with particular reference to Boko Haram. By far the highest numbers killed by Boko Haram are Muslims, not Christians, and this includes senior Muslim clerics and anyone who stands up against its extremist ideology. We have consistently encouraged, and will continue to do so, the Government of Nigeria to protect all their citizens and to promote a dialogue between communities at different levels, as indeed I saw and participated in myself in Kaduna, earlier this year. It is important to distinguish between the age-old competition for land and resources between farmers and nomadic herders and the terrorism occurring in the north-east. Nigeria is a traditionally tolerant country.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised the issue of the worrying events happening in the Central African Republic. Appalling human rights abuses are going on there. The Department for International Development recently announced an increase from £5 million to £15 million for humanitarian assistance. Both French and African troops are going to be deployed, which I hope will be authorised by a United Nations resolution later this week.
	A number of hon. Members raised the appalling attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt. Let me reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement to Parliament of 3 September when he spoke about the deplorable burning of churches and the attacks on Coptic Christians. We were outraged by the attack of 20 October, when four Coptic Christians were killed. The Foreign Secretary has publicly condemned all acts of violence. We recently encouraged the committee tasked with drafting Egypt’s new constitution to ensure stronger protection in that country.
	A number of hon. Members raised the work of the all-party group on international religious freedom and beliefs, which is chaired by Baroness Berridge. We very much welcome its work and encourage all faiths to work together, regardless of the specific religion involved in incidents. I also pay tribute to the work of the Christian Church over the centuries to fight for religious freedom for all faiths, not just for Christians.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked what additional work the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will do to raise the issue of the persecution of Christians. Let me reiterate that the persecution of Christians was the precise topic of a speech by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in Washington last month. This clearly demonstrates that the FCO recognises and prioritises this matter not just as a problem, but as an issue on which we must work to find solutions. Other ministerial colleagues and I raise the issue of the persecution of Christians wherever and whenever it occurs, as do our ambassadors and high commissioners around the world, expressing our deep and heartfelt concern.
	A number of other hon. Members raised the important issue of UK taxpayers’ money going to countries where the persecution of Christians takes place. It needs to be understood that the majority of UK development assistance does not go via Governments, but where it does go through budgetary support, we make it absolutely clear that the host Government must share the UK’s commitment to respecting the full range of human rights, including combating religious intolerance and tackling persecution and discrimination.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made a very powerful speech. I want to confirm to him that my noble Friend Baroness Warsi regularly raises the issue of the blasphemy laws with Ministers and the Government in Pakistan.
	I fully agree that Christian belief is a powerful force motivating millions of people to do good, with Christian institutions occupying a valuable position in society. We recognise the positive role Christians play across the world.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House is concerned that the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century; notes that there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith; further notes that Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally; bears in mind that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eighth Replenishment of the Unified Special Development Fund) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 1 November, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Syria: A Comprehensive EU Approach

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11482/13, a Joint Commission and High Representative Communication: Towards a comprehensive EU approach to the Syrian crisis; and agrees with the Government that in responding to the Syrian crisis, the EU should focus its efforts on those areas in which it has expertise, complementing broader national and international efforts.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have two petitions. The first is a petition of 386 residents of my constituency on the Rural Fair Share campaign.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001303]

Cardiac Rehabilitation Services at Danetre Hospital (Daventry)

Chris Heaton-Harris: My second petition is a very important one—not that the last one was not. This petition is about cardiac rehabilitation services at Danetre hospital in my constituency. They were removed a while ago, and a fantastic campaigner, Viv Crouch, has been campaigning ever since to get them back. She and a number of other people have raised a petition signed by over 1,200 people from across Daventry.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe cardiac rehabilitation should be introduced in Danetre Hospital to help local people recovering from heart problems.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reintroduce this service as soon as possible.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001305]

Proposed Bund Construction on Oregon Close, Kingswinford, Dudley

Chris Kelly: It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Oregon close in Kingswinford in my constituency. It relates to matters regarding the quarry that is operated by WCL Quarries and is ultimately owned by Hinton Perry & Davenhill, a major company in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Dudley South,
	Declares that a planning application on Oregon Close (P13/1596) has been presented to Dudley Metropolitan Council; further that the Petitioners believe that the construction of bunds to a height of six metres on top of an existing four metre wall has the potential to structurally damage the surrounding houses; further that the Petitioners believe that bringing forward the construction to 2014 provides insufficient time to arrange a professional structural survey of the retaining wall and affected houses and to put movement monitoring equipment in place; further that the Petitioners object to the noise and toxic fumes which will be endured for twelve months; and further that the Petitioners believe that their quality of life and health will be detrimentally affected if the proposal in this planning application is accepted.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Dudley Metropolitan Council to reject the planning application on Oregon Close.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001304]

NEWRY HMRC CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Margaret Ritchie: I would like to thank the Minister for coming here to respond to the debate this evening. HMRC centres throughout the UK, including in Newry, have been subject to turbulent change since 2006, and staff have grown accustomed to their jobs being under threat. However, I was alarmed to hear that the Treasury is now offering voluntary exits and effectively seems to have decided to close down HMRC centres across Northern Ireland—in Newry, Enniskillen and Derry.
	The Newry centre currently employs 134 staff, many of whom live in my constituency, and I know that this news came as a shock to them and their families. It represents a real blow to working people and families across Northern Ireland, and the removal of these jobs will be a severe drain on the local economy. These people are also vastly experienced, and as it appears they are not being offered re-deployment, this will be a great loss of expertise.
	Despite being hit hard by the financial crisis since 2008, Newry and the surrounding area has great economic potential to harness north-south business development. Significant steps taken under the “Newry Vision” programme have bolstered the private sector, and consideration has been given to where public-private partnerships can be effective. The Newry area, given its strategic location on the Belfast-Dublin corridor, has been identified as a vital economic hub within the Northern Ireland regional development strategy. As has been highlighted by economists and spatial geographers such as Professor John Driscoll, the area could be the fulcrum for key north-south economic development.
	However, it is critical for the balance and sustainability of the local economy that these public sector jobs be maintained. Indeed, with 12 public sector jobs per 100 of the working-age population, Newry is under-represented in public sector jobs in Northern Ireland, and removing them would put severe pressure on the whole local economy, including the private sector. Only last week, I was told that staff numbers in the administration sector of the Public Prosecution Service in Newry will be reduced, and that Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency offices could be closed. That is still open for discussion, and hopefully the Minister with responsibility for transport here could reverse that decision.

Lady Hermon: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She will know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently looked into the appalling crime of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. I and the other members of the Committee were indebted to the HMRC for its work throughout Northern Ireland, but particularly in the Newry area. One thing we were very concerned about was the evidence given to us about the cost to Newry and Mourne district council of cleaning up the rubbish left behind by these criminal gangs. We need more HMRC staff in Newry, not fewer.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I sit on a cross-border committee organised by Newry and Mourne district council. A representative from HMRC in Newry attends its meetings and deals with illegal fuel laundering. The last meeting was some six weeks ago, and good progress has been made on that, on foot of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the good work being carried out by HMRC in dealing with illegal fuel laundering.

Mark Durkan: As my hon. Friend knows, Foyle House in Derry, in my constituency, is also affected by the proposals. She is rightly emphasising the fact that jobs are at stake, but does she agree that the quality of services is also at stake? When other taxation services have moved out of Northern Ireland, not least those involving the administration of tax credits, many people—particularly cross-border workers—have been left with very poor services and chronic problems.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for this service, particularly in regard to cross-border working, as there is a considerable interchange of population between the north and the south. In his case, it is between Derry and Donegal; in my case, it is between Newry and Dundalk. In my area, there is a memorandum of understanding between both councils, north and south, to deal with economic issues in order to pump-prime the local economy.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Lady feel that the closure of the office with the loss of 134 jobs will affect the ability of the Treasury to bring in the revenue that this country needs?

Margaret Ritchie: The face-to-face services provided by HMRC in Newry are vital to my constituency, because of the lack of access to broadband and the need to deal on a cross-border basis with matters such as tax avoidance. Newry’s strategic location means that it is vital to have those services there.
	The programme of voluntary exits for staff cannot be euphemistically explained away by the normal rhetoric of “modernisation and streamlining”. It represents the wholesale removal of vital face-to-face and personal tax services, and a distinct refashioning of the link between people and revenue collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has just made that point as well. Time and again it has been reported that consumers and businesses prefer face-to-face transactions when dealing with tax and revenue issues. The new strategy will have severe limitations, particularly when complex matters are being discussed.
	The decision will drastically alter the link between the community and a vital public service. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, as well as by the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That is already a problem, and I know that many local people and businesses already struggle to access services from HMRC. People can feel disconnected from the system, especially in Northern Ireland, and that will be further exacerbated by the changes.
	It might seem more efficient for the Treasury to implement these changes, but it will almost certainly not be more efficient for those people forced to rely on telephone lines, with all the long delays involved, or for
	those who lack access to the internet or find it difficult to use modern technology. This could leave many people isolated from access to vital services, particularly at a time of widespread changes to the tax and benefits system.
	South Down and the region supported by the Newry HMRC centre are predominantly rural areas and as such they face all the problems associated with that, including limited broadband access and people living in remote and isolated locations. Those people cannot simply be expected to adopt online and phone services, especially when complex personal tax issues are under discussion. Recent immigrants, the poor, the elderly and the disabled will all be made more vulnerable by the removal of these services. Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, has warned that this action is being carried out too rapidly and without due consideration.
	The Treasury has claimed, through statements to the media and in written answers here, that it is not closing down these centres, but the voluntary exits that are being offered surely amount to a de facto closure. These exit offers are a clear statement of intent, and the closure of the sites, which the Treasury has seemingly made inevitable, will almost certainly increase the pressure on staff to accept the terms on offer. I am deeply concerned about this tactic of offering exit packages before proper, full consultations and impact assessments have been carried out on the closures. It is deeply cynical to hang this uncertainty over the heads of the staff at the same time as offering a redundancy package.
	I would therefore like the Minister to clarify the terms on which these exits are being carried out. I would also like clarification on the future of the Newry centre, which dealt with 500,000 queries and cases over the past year. Such clarification will include a time scale for the future strategy for staffing and operations in Northern Ireland. The Minister needs to address why there has been no equality impact assessment, as required under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and as produced for the initial proposal in 1998. Why has there been no consultation with staff, unions or, apparently, the Northern Ireland Executive? Did the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland make any representations as far back as March or April, when there were some intimations that this might happen? Have they received a response to such representations?
	In similar circumstances in the past, the Treasury has sought ministerial approval from the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as a full equality impact assessment and stakeholder consultation. This new approach of offering voluntary exits before this process has begun is deeply worrying, particularly given the devastating impact this closure could have on the local community and economy. There are very real equality issues relating to the closure of this centre, as it is mostly the lower paid, disabled and part-time staff and women who will be most vulnerable and will find it the hardest to get new work; a higher proportion of women will be affected. I also have to point out that the three centres being closed are all in predominantly nationalist constituencies, which could bring its own equality implications.
	Before following through with these measures in Northern Ireland, I would also be grateful if the Minister could include more information on the pilot study carried out in the north of England on the introduction
	of the reformed service. Critical questions are outstanding on the capacity of non-face-to-face and reduced personal tax services to deal with the range of queries that these centres deal with daily. How long will people have to wait on hold to have their inquiry heard? How many cases took more than one call to resolve? How many required a subsequent face-to-face meeting? What was the experience of people and businesses using the new system, and how much will it cost them? There is a clear onus on the Treasury to provide this information before coming to any decision on removing the existing centres. Instead we get the impression of a Department that has made its decision and will find the appropriate reasons from there.
	More broadly, we know that tax evasion and avoidance cost the public purse an astronomical amount every year, and that is surely only likely to rise with the closure of local compliance centres. With tax evasion and avoidance costing our economy more than £100 billion a year, HMRC should be expanding rather than cutting offices and staff. Surely the Treasury should be looking at how local tax centres can be adequately resourced and given the scope to take on some of these functions. Indeed, initially we were led to believe the Newry centre would be retained and would assume further responsibility for some cross-border issues, including compliance and tax co-operation with Irish authorities—where better to locate a cross-border taxation co-operation centre than Newry in the context of the development of north-south business links? I am disappointed that that no longer seems to be the case. I would like the Minster to explain what consideration he has given to this. Will he take a more constructive approach?
	This Government never tire of telling us of their desire to rebuild and rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland. The message sent out by the decision to remove jobs from the Newry HMRC centre sharply contradicts that, as there are simply not jobs available for these people to move into. Instead, this decision will remove money from the local economy, hitting not just those families directly involved, but businesses across the whole area. I ask the Minister, who has been generous with his time on previous occasions, to hold further meetings with local politicians, the Public and Commercial Services Union and representatives in Newry to look at a constructive solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle would join us at such a meeting to discuss Derry. There is an urgent need for the Treasury to review this decision and make a full assessment of the impact of it on the local economy and community.
	I am absolutely certain that a viable, economically sound centre can be retained that protects local jobs, perhaps through a centre that also considers aspects related to cross-border tax issues and wider anti tax avoidance and evasion measures. What is absolutely not acceptable is the degree of uncertainty that has been created while staff are being offered exit deals.

David Gauke: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate this evening. I welcome this opportunity to clarify what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is doing in respect of the office in Newry and to give the House as much information as possible.
	The answer to the written parliamentary question that the hon. Lady tabled last week highlighted the fact that HMRC has not announced the closure of the office in Newry. However, on 20 November, HMRC invited around 1,500 people in 21 locations to apply for a voluntary exit. That included more than 130 people in Custom House in Newry. The invitation gives people the option to leave HMRC if that fits with their life choices, but HMRC is not making redundancies at this stage.
	Before I go into detail on the voluntary exits and what it means for staff in Newry and other offices, it is important to explain the context. HMRC is reshaping itself to become a more modern, flexible and cost-effective organisation that can deliver better, more personalised services for customers at the same time as increasing tax revenues from compliance. Like other Departments, it has to deliver that within ever-tighter fiscal constraints.
	HMRC has been steadily reducing in size since it was formed in 2005. Over the past eight years, it has cut its staff from around 97,000 full-time equivalent people to just under 63,000 FTEs at the end of October 2013. It has reduced its estate by more than 200 offices, and is now more concentrated in urban centres. It has done that while improving service and increasing yield. Since HMRC was created, it has more than doubled its compliance yield and delivered major projects, including Real Time Information. During 2012-13, it brought pay-as-you-earn up to date for the first time, answered 75.2% of the calls made to its contact centres—hitting 90% during the last six months of the year—and, for the first time since HMRC was formed, cleared more than 80% of customer post within 15 days.
	HMRC has committed to reducing its work force from 63,000 FTEs today to 54,000 by the end of 2014-15 and then to 52,000 by the end of 2015-16. Although retirements, resignations and people reducing their working hours will deliver some of those work force reductions, they will not be sufficient if HMRC is to achieve its work force target. HMRC has always made it clear to its staff that it was likely that voluntary exits would be needed and that is what it announced last month. Targeted groups of staff will be asked to consider whether a voluntary exit is right for them. People in those groups might be in roles that are needed less and less because of new ways of working, including increased automation and the fact that some administrative work has dried up. Others are in locations where, according to all the indications, one, some or all lines of business in HMRC are unlikely to be based in the medium to long term.
	Although the specifics of the announcement will, I appreciate, come as a shock or surprise to many people, the reality is that HMRC will continue to contract its work force. That has long been known by staff and many have been waiting to find out where that contraction will take place. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Down acknowledged that there has been uncertainty in Newry for some time.
	The background to the news is that in June 2011 HMRC announced that it would be located in 16 key centres until at least 2020. Those centres include Belfast. Newry was one of most of the other offices in which HMRC said that it would be located until at least 2015. As HMRC reduces in size, it will need to continue to bring together its people in larger sites where they can
	work more flexibly and to reduce its footprint to be more cost-effective. Smaller offices will not be viable as overall numbers reduce and the skills pool in smaller local communities will not necessarily provide all the skills that HMRC needs when it needs them. HMRC has therefore started to identify locations that do not fit business needs in the medium to long term. In seven of the 21 locations where people have been invited to apply for voluntary exit, one or more lines of business intend to withdraw from the office in time. In the other 14 offices, all of the lines of business wish to withdraw. Newry is one of those offices.
	There is not at present a proposal to close those offices, since HMRC is honouring the commitment it made to staff in 2011 that they would stay open until at least 2015. However, HMRC’s executive committee took the view that staff should know that there might not be a long-term future for those offices well in advance of any decision on office closures, so that they can think about their options and start planning their futures.
	The voluntary exit scheme—I stress that it is entirely voluntary—gives those staff who want to leave HMRC the opportunity to do so on favourable financial terms. Some people will welcome the opportunity to leave the Department given that change and uncertainty in the air. The compensation provided by accepting a voluntary exit will enable people to pursue other life choices if that is what they want to do.

Margaret Ritchie: If the staff choose to stay and do not take voluntary exit, what is the long-term future for them, for Newry and for the other 13 centres?

David Gauke: Let me say a bit more and I shall answer the hon. Lady’s question directly. Those who wish to take up the exit package will need to apply by 18 December and decide on a formal offer by 31 January. Their last day of service will be 30 April. As she says, other people will not want to leave and there is no compulsion on them to apply for a voluntary exit if they wish to stay, but they have been given notice of the likely longer term picture for their offices and will ultimately need to consider their future after 2015. HMRC will not be closing Newry or any of the offices where it invited people to consider applying for a voluntary exit before April 2015, in line with the picture it gave in 2012 about how long it would be based in current locations.
	I do not underestimate the fact that for many people this news was a shock and was unwelcome, but I believe that HMRC was right to provide its staff with an honest assessment about the future of their offices or, in some cases, their roles, and to offer them the opportunity to consider applying for a voluntary exit.
	HMRC needs to do further work to be able to say if and when it sees itself moving away from Newry and the 13 other locations where all lines of business will be reducing. A future decision to close the office will need to be accompanied by a proper consultation process and equality impacts, involving the employees themselves, their trade unions, right hon. and hon. Members and other local interests.
	Let me pick up on a couple of the questions asked by the hon. Lady. She asked why there has not been consultation at this point and I stress that HMRC has
	not yet taken a decision to close Newry or any other office. Newry does not feature in HMRC’s long-term plans, but as long as there are people in the office, HMRC will not break its previous commitment that no occupied office will close before April 2015. HMRC follows a tried and tested process in these circumstances. If and when there is a proposal to close the office, consultation will be undertaken with interested parties, both within and outside the Department, and feedback will be invited from staff, unions, hon. Members, other elected local representatives, and the local community. Any representations will be considered fully before a final decision is made.

William McCrea: Is the Minister not playing with words? I am listening to what he is saying but, in reality, has a decision not already been made?

David Gauke: I reiterate that HMRC will honour the commitment made earlier in this Parliament that Newry will be open at least until 2015. A final decision will be made only after consultation, as I have outlined. I do not wish in any way to hide from the point—indeed, HMRC has been very clear about this—that HMRC does not see Newry having a future in the long term. The final decision as to when any closure would take place will be made, as I have said, after consultation. The choice for HMRC in the circumstances is to try to conceal that and leave things to the last minute or to try to be as open as possible, engage with staff and provide opportunities at an early stage for those who might want to leave voluntarily with a severance package.

Mark Durkan: In the decisions that HMRC is making about its future pattern of business, has any account been taken of the possible changes in the distribution of taxation? The Government have recently indicated that there are shifts in relation to Wales, and who knows what is going to happen in Scotland? If other choices are being made on some taxation moving to a more devolution-weighted basis, surely having a revenue-collecting infrastructure available in a devolved area is hugely important?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. HMRC is going in the direction of concentration on larger urban offices that have the flexibility to operate. Included in those larger urban offices is Belfast. He tempts me to speculate on future policy matters in the devolution of tax, but I want to make it clear that this is not a proposal to withdraw from Northern Ireland. This is a proposal that applies across the United Kingdom, with a move to larger urban centres. That applies in Northern Ireland, as well as elsewhere.
	May I deal quickly with the issue of the equality impact assessment, which is an important matter raised by the hon. Member for South Down? The equality position has been considered, and it has been concluded that there is unlikely to be a disproportionate impact on any of the protected equality groups as a result of the voluntary exit schemes. Consequently, completion of an equality impact assessment is unnecessary. A people impact assessment has been completed, however, and audiences likely to be affected have been identified and appropriate mitigating action will be taken to eliminate those impacts.
	If HMRC does decide to close any offices in future it will identify all redeployment options for affected staff. However, because its estate and work force will become smaller, there will clearly be less chance of redeployment in HMRC, particularly in areas that are outside a reasonable daily commute.

Margaret Ritchie: rose—

David Gauke: I am conscious that I have two minutes left, but I shall give way one last time.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his generosity; I hope that that will be extended to HMRC in Newry. May I also ask him to provide us with some information about the pilot study in the north-east of England and its outcomes?

David Gauke: I will answer the hon. Lady’s question, although I suspect that I will be unable to conclude my
	remarks as I had wanted to. This issue is very much focused on the inquiry centre, which is only a small part of what is currently undertaken in Newry. With regard to the inquiry centre pilot in the north-east of England, HMRC will decide in January 2014 whether to roll out that service and move away from inquiry centres and face-to-face services and towards a telephone service with additional enhanced support for vulnerable people. HMRC remains committed to providing face-to-face support for those who need it in future, including in Newry and across Northern Ireland. If we decide to roll out the new service next year, HMRC believes that it will provide that face-to-face support in a way that is more flexible and accessible to customers.
	Time is constrained, so I will conclude by saying—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).